.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/22/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-21, 12:58:41
Subject: Re: Re: Numbers in Space
On Friday, September 21
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are
already there. The problem is learning their results.
The
. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same
method of thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve
them too, regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers.
What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory
be functionally identical to a living brain
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp
-
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-20, 20:50:22
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com
On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations
are already
On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the numbers build an arithmetic body
The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body.
and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they
can implement the UD.
No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists like
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if
made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:16:19 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.
Craig
To understand a thing is to
. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc.
I was going to do another post upping the ante from Numbers in Space to
Numbers in Xpace (imaginary space). To me this is the fading qualia
argument that could be a Waterloo for comp. The transition from Turing
machines executed in matter to execution
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio
On 21 Sep 2012, at 16:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
It's not doing the computations
On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2012-09-21, 11:27:56
*Subject:* Re: Numbers in Space
On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P.
On 21 Sep 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or
On 9/21/2012 8:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using
only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use
millimeters or Planck
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using
only empty
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space?
You are quite
had stashed away in space, then my body
would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them.
It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of thinking numbers
into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, regardless of the
distance between my body and the numbers
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified,
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the
On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:10:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of
the absolute position that I had
placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of
thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve them too,
regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers.
What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could
On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.
Craig
To understand a thing is to control a thing.
--
Onward!
Stephen
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are
36 matches
Mail list logo
