Thanks Hal.
I add that your link provide a way to recover my old conversation with
Joel Dobrzelewski on the list (28 June 2001), which presents the
simplest version of the Universal Dovetelair Argument (UDA), i.e. the
argument showing that the computationalist hypothesis (in the
Le 19-janv.-06, à 02:45, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:32:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 15-janv.-06, ? 19:04, Benjamin Udell a ?crit :
The dovetailer keeps sounding like a powerful idea. I do remember
that it has often been mentioned here, but somehow I
Le 18-janv.-06, à 20:35, danny mayes a écrit :
I doubt the beliefs of fundementalist Christianity will ever be
absolutely proven or disproven, and as a faith belief I reserve the
right to discard it at my choosing!
And what if you make the personal experience of God afterlife or
before,
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Danny Mayes writes:
I haven't participated in the list in a while, but I try to keep up
with the discussion here and there as time permits. I personally was
raised a fundamentalist Baptist, but lost most of my interest in that
religion when I was taught at 9
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:32:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 15-janv.-06, ? 19:04, Benjamin Udell a ?crit :
The dovetailer keeps sounding like a powerful idea. I do remember
that it has often been mentioned here, but somehow I failed to pick up
a sense of what it was really about.
Russell, list,
[Ben] The dovetailer keeps sounding like a powerful idea. I do remember
that it has often been mentioned here, but somehow I failed to pick up a sense
of what it was really about. Was there a message to the Everything-List in
which it was explained so that non-experts can
Russell, list,
Thanks for pointing out Roy Frieden and EPI.
At first skim, it reminds me vaguely of the argument by C.S. Peirce (there's
that name again) that space was curved. The idea was that it would take
infinite precision of measurement to establish that space were perfectly
Euclidean
Le 15-janv.-06, à 19:04, Benjamin Udell a écrit :
The dovetailer keeps sounding like a powerful idea. I do remember
that it has often been mentioned here, but somehow I failed to pick up
a sense of what it was really about.
The Universal Dovetailer is a program which generates and executes
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:04:02PM -0500, Benjamin Udell wrote:
The dovetailer keeps sounding like a powerful idea. I do remember that it
has often been mentioned here, but somehow I failed to pick up a sense of
what it was really about. Was there a message to the Everything-List in which
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:12:15AM -0500, Benjamin Udell wrote:
[Russell] The particular Plenitude I assume (ensemble of all bitstrings) is
actually a completely uninteresting place to have a view of (it has
precisely zero informational complexity).
Is this kind of Plenitude (ensemble of all
people here for not discussing those
subjects enough.)
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Le 13-janv.-06, à 18:51, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-janv.-06, à 04:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
I sympathise with the conclusions of the young Danny, but there is a
philosophical non sequitur here. The fact that I would like
something to be true, or not to be
of research and the four
Levels.
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue-faith
Le
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue-faith
Bruno, list,
Thank your for clarifying with regard to semantics and truth-preservation,
enough for me to do a little homework.
I searched around the Internet and see that you're quite right, I've wandered
Thanks. The expression rational theology is quite nice and I have been
tempted to use it but it is already used by Mormons in a too much a
priori christian frame.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/widtsoe.shtml
But if a adjective should be added to theology I think I would use
lobian perhaps. But
Le 12-janv.-06, à 16:54, Benjamin Udell a écrit :
Bruno, list,
If I understand you correctly, then you mean, more generally:
G* \ G will correspond to any true conclusion that the machine can
draw by other than deductive (= truth-preservative)inference.
Yes. Except that if deduction are
Le 13-janv.-06, à 04:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
I sympathise with the conclusions of the young Danny, but there is a
philosophical non sequitur here. The fact that I would like something
to be true, or not to be true, has no bearing on whether it is in fact
true. I don't like what
with this distinction :)
I'll count that credit as established.
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming
Bruno, list,
[Ben] Bruno, list,
If I understand you correctly, then you mean, more generally:
G* \ G will correspond to any true conclusion that the machine can draw by
other than deductive (= truth-preservative)inference.
[Bruno] Yes. Except that if deduction are generally thought indeed
Le 09-janv.-06, à 18:30, Benjamin Udell a écrit :
By ampliative induction I mean, not mathematical induction.
Nice! I hope you will be patient enough to see that this is a good
description of G* \ G.
G characterises the self-referential discourse of the lobian machine,
which is
]
To: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue-faith
Le 09-janv.-06, à 18:30, Benjamin Udell a écrit :
By ampliative induction I mean, not mathematical induction.
Nice! I
Bruno, list,
It occurred to me that I ought not merely to wing it on the meaning of
theology as a word. There are various places online to look it up, but this
is an interesting one and, anyway, some may find this to be an introduction to
a good resource.
From the Century Dictionary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Le 11-janv.-06, à 17:57, Benjamin Udell a écrit :
Bruno, list,
Well, on the basis of that which you say below (much of which I
Tegmark's 4 level Multiverse (actually the Multiverse is only one of
the levels) does not really have viewpoints at each level.
In my book, which largely follows the tradition of this list, there is
3 viewpoints identified: 1st person, 1st person plural and 3rd person.
The 3rd person corresponds
Russell, list,
Tegmark's 4 level Multiverse (actually the Multiverse is only one of the
levels) does not really have viewpoints at each level.
In my book, which largely follows the tradition of this list, there is 3
viewpoints identified: 1st person, 1st person plural and 3rd person.
The
Danny Mayes writes:
I haven't participated in the list in a while, but I try to keep up with
the discussion here and there as time permits. I personally was raised a
fundamentalist Baptist, but lost most of my interest in that religion when
I was taught at 9 years old that all the little
Hi ,
Can someone please tell me how I unsubscrive from this mailing list ?
Thanks
Graeme
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Danny Mayes writes:
I haven't participated in the list in a while, but I try to keep up
with the discussion here and there as time permits. I personally was
raised a
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:12:13PM -0500, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Russell, list,
Tegmark's 4 level Multiverse (actually the Multiverse is only one of the
levels) does not really have viewpoints at each level.
In my book, which largely follows the tradition of this list, there is 3
PROTECTED]
To: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Hi Benjamin, List,
I will comment your long post, taking into account some posts from its
sequel (to avoid repetition).
But I will try
Hi Brent,
The D is put for the modal Diamond possibility. Dp is ~B~p (possible
p = not necessary not p). With the provability logics (G and/or G*):
the B represent formal provability and the D represents formal
consistency. Dt is the same as ~Bf and represents (self)-consistency.
Hi Benjamin,
Bruno, list,
I've looked over Bruno's recent replies and, though I don't understand
much about Bruno's work or modal logic, etc., I wish to attempt a few
general remarks.
If Bruno is, as he puts it, [searching for] a general name for a
field which studies fundamental type
Le 04-janv.-06, à 19:30, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi John,
I think you may have problems because you are not used neither
trained in axiomatic thinking. The idea consists in NOT defining the
objects we want to talk about, and keeping just some needed
properties from
Hi John,
I think you may have problems because you are not used neither trained
in axiomatic thinking. The idea consists in NOT defining the objects we
want to talk about, and keeping just some needed properties from which
we prove other theorem.
Let me give an example with the idea of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-déc.-05, à 04:14, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:07:28PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
(*) Well, I'm certainly interested in that naming issue, and perhaps I
could ask you right now what expression do you find the less shocking:
Physics is
Hi,
Le Mercredi 4 Janvier 2006 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Theism is the belief that the world was created by a single omnipotent,
superhuman agent who cares about human behavoir and intervenes in worldly
events.
Is that your theory??
Brent Meeker
Atheism is not a religion, just as a
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:30:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thanks for giving me your feeling. I obviously agree with you that
atheism is a religion. Actually I see this as a reason to keep the word
theology , although I remain open to the possibility of changing my
mind on this
Brent Meeker writes:
Theism is the belief that the world was created by a single omnipotent,
superhuman agent who cares about human behavoir and intervenes in worldly
events.
Is that your theory??
Brent Meeker
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
building, and
It is worth repeating that machine theology would be a bad choice of words
quite aside from the debate that has been generated on this thread about the
meaning of atheism etc. This is because of the negative reaction the term
theology would inspire in the (English-speaking, at least)
Le 27-déc.-05, à 05:43, George Levy a écrit :
Naming this field is difficult. This is why I made several suggestions
none of which I thought were excellent.
I think it is difficult because there is a conflict between pedagogy
and diplomacy there.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't
Hi John,
To search informations on the net on G and G*, it is easier to search
on logic of provability.
G is also called KW, KW4, L, GL, PRL in other papers or book.
G* is also called G', PRL^omega, GLS
The Stanford entry is rather good:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/
Thanks, Bruno,
your brief added last par is of great help. I would
NEVER mix provability and probability, I am not
Spanish (b=v?) and think in semantical rather than
formal meanings. I wish I knew what is a modal logic
(G and G*) and am a bit perplexed of your (??) logic
defining G* as beeing
Hi Stephen,
Le 24-déc.-05, à 02:27, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
As for a name, following the comments of George and John, what about I^st and 3^rd Person aspects in Computational Logics?
That is not too bad ... for the title of a paper, but I'm afraid it is too long for a field's name.
Also,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:07:28PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
(*) Well, I'm certainly interested in that naming issue, and perhaps I
could ask you right now what expression do you find the less shocking:
Physics is derivable from machine psychology, or
Physics is derivable from machine
Le 23-déc.-05, à 23:46, John M a écrit :
BTW, Bruno, from the little I did understand from your
texts so far and from the lots I didn't I think we are
NOT in a perfect match of worldviews. Hard to
pinpoint, because I bleong to those who do not
speak/(think) within your vocabulary G
I don't
Bruno,
thanks for your VERY considerate reply, I will respond
later in more detail. Now I simply want to point to
some facetious(?) connotations about words, as the
profanum vulgus may (flippantly) misunderstand them
(and YES, I believe it is vocabularial):
psycho (in a hazy phrase) points to
Naming this field is difficult. This is why I made several suggestions
none of which I thought were excellent.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think it is a question of vocabulary,
It is only a question of vocabulary if you intend to communicate with
other people. And this is where the
Bruno, John and Stephen
More on naming:
I think the name should include the following concepts
1) modal or relativistic or relative formulation or first person,
2) quantum or quantics,
3) psycho or psyche or consciousness or ego,
4) mechanics or theory.
So, picking one term from each row we
Le 22-déc.-05, à 23:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
What I will say is of course obvious from third-person
hind-sight, but it helps me to guard against delusion to
point out the limitedness of email list dialogue when it comes
to accomplishing anything significant. I think that the
Bruno
I don't think either "machine psychology" or "machine theology" work
because of the baggage those field already carry. In any case the
attribute "machine" sends the wrong picture. And as you have pointed
out the terms "computer science" and "number theory" do not capture
the real issue
George (and Bruno, of course)
First my coingrats to Bruno for completing his writing
up to t publishable level, and now comes the proble:
George, I struggle for the same quagmire, to find
words for terms unmatched/able to the baggage EVERY
habitual human word carries. I have 3 languages plus
Dear Bruno,
As for a name, following the comments of
George and John, what about "I^st and 3^rd Person aspects in Computational
Logics"?
Onward!
Stephen
Hi,
My paper has been published and should be available
on the site of Elsevier (not freely, except if your
institution has a free acces on Elsevier Journals).
The official reference are:
Marchal B. Theoretical computer science and the natural
science, Physics of Life Reviews, Vol 2/4, pp.
Bruno Marchal writes:
(*) Well, I'm certainly interested in that naming issue, and perhaps I
could ask you right now what expression do you find the less shocking:
Physics is derivable from machine psychology, or
Physics is derivable from machine theology ?
'course, you can put computer
Hi,
My paper has been published and should be available on the site of
Elsevier (not freely, except if your institution has a free acces on
Elsevier Journals).
The official reference are:
Marchal B. Theoretical computer science and the natural science,
Physics of Life Reviews, Vol 2/4, pp.
54 matches
Mail list logo
