On 28 May 2012, at 04:00, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
I still don't follow. If I have proved a is true in some world, why
should I infer that it is true in all worlds? What am I
On 28 May 2012, at 10:37, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2012, at 04:00, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
I still don't follow. If I have proved a is true in some world, why
should I
On 28 May 2012, at 11:35, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:37:53AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2012, at 04:00, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
I still
On 5/28/2012 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am mute on the subject of whether p is true in any other
world (unless I can use an axiom like the above).
By the logicians notion of proof, if you prove a proposition, it is true in all
worlds/model/interpretation.
But the 'worlds' are defined
On 26.05.2012 21:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:42:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a = Ba is a valid rule for all logic having a Kripke
semantics. Why? Because it means that a is supposed to be valid (for
example you have already prove it), so a, like any theorem, will be
true in all worlds, so a will be
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:42:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a = Ba is a valid rule for all logic having a Kripke
semantics. Why? Because it means that a is supposed to be valid (for
example you have already prove it), so a, like any
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:42:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a = Ba is a valid rule for all logic having a Kripke
semantics. Why? Because it means that a is supposed to be valid (for
example you have already prove it), so a, like any
On 27 May 2012, at 09:46, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 21:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
I still don't follow. If I have proved a is true in some world, why
should I infer that it is true in all worlds? What am I missing?
I realize my previous answer might be too
On 24.05.2012 09:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
nominalism that they are just notation and do not exist as such
independently from the mind.
But that distinction is usually made in the aristotelian context,
where some concrete
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.05.2012 09:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
nominalism that they are just notation and do not exist as such
independently from the mind.
But that distinction is usually made in
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem, after all, is
one of possible positions.
What do you mean by my position? I
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 7:48:41 AM UTC-7, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem,
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem, after all, is
one of
On 24 May 2012, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/24/2012 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 May 2012, at 09:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is
a - b is indeed not a or
On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.05.2012 20:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let us take terms like information, computation, etc. Are they
mental or mathematical?
Information is vague, and can be both.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is
a - b is indeed not a or b (or not(a and not b)).
The IF ... THEN used in math is generally of that type.
I use a = b for from a I can derive b, in the theory I
On 24 May 2012, at 09:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is
a - b is indeed not a or b (or not(a and not b)).
The IF ... THEN used in math is generally of that type.
I use
On 5/24/2012 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 May 2012, at 09:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is
a - b is indeed not a or b (or not(a and not b)).
The IF ... THEN
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
particular as primitive, even if it is quantity itself, for to do
such is to
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yes, that is the usual meaning. It can also be written (DP or not COMP).
= = or not]
On 23 May 2012, at 07:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yes, that is the usual meaning. It can also be
On 23 May 2012, at 02:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/22/2012 4:22 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
particular as primitive, even if it is
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp model
(theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it predicts the whole
of physics,
It's easy to predict the whole of physics; just predict that
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are within the category of Mental then that
is news to
On 5/23/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
2012/5/23 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/23/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such
On 5/23/2012 1:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are within the
On 23.05.2012 19:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
...
There seems to be a divergence of definitions occurring. It might be
better for me to withdraw from philosophical discussions for a while
and focus just on mathematical questions, like the dependence on
order of a basis...
I
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are
On 23.05.2012 20:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let us take terms like information, computation, etc. Are they
mental or mathematical?
Information is vague, and can be both.
Computation is mathematical, by using the Church
On 23 May 2012, at 19:23, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/23/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such
On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one.
The comp model (theory) has much more predictive power than
physics, given that it predicts the whole of physics,
It's easy to predict
On 5/23/2012 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp model
(theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it predicts the
Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/23/2012 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your
On 5/23/2012 1:20 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Brent:
What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a
particular universe.
It's the other extreme from 'predicting' everything happens. Since we only have the one
physical universe against which to test the prediction, it's the
-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/23/2012 1:20 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Brent:
What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a
particular
On 5/23/2012 4:42 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Brent:
I ask if it is reasonable to propose that a theory of everything must be able to list
ALL the aspects of the local physics for each one of a complete catalog of universes?
But I wasn't asking for ALL the aspects, just a few very general ones
Hi Brent:
I shall try to respond tomorrow.
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/23
On 5/21/2012 10:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM,
2012/5/22 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/21/2012 10:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:42:01AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
4) What is the cardinality of
On 5/22/2012 3:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/21/2012 10:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:42:01AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb
On 22 May 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:42:01AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM,
On 5/22/2012 10:56 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
snip
Hi Russell,
I once thought that consistency, in mathematics, was
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/22/2012 10:56 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
snip
Hi Russell,
I once thought that consistency, in
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/22/2012 10:56 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
snip
Hi Russell,
I once thought
On 5/22/2012 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 May 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:42:01AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/22/2012 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 May 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:42:01AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell
Hi Everyone:
Unfortunately I have been unable to support a post reading/creation activity
on this list for a long time.
I had started this post as a comment to one of Russell's responses [Hi
Russell] to a post by Stephen [Hi Stephen].
I have a model (considerably revised here) that I have been
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
particular as primitive, even if it is quantity itself, for to do
such is to violate the very
On 5/22/2012 4:22 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any particular as
primitive, even if it is quantity
2012/5/23 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
particular as primitive, even if it is quantity itself, for to do such is
to
On 20 May 2012, at 18:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an
algorithm, the physical world is the limit of all computations
going throught your current state... what is computable is your
On 21 May 2012, at 07:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Yes. Are those entities that exist from the beginning (which is
what ontological primitivity implies...) or are they aspects of the
unfolding reality?
I think they are concepts we made up.
On 20 May 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an
algorithm, the physical world is the limit of all computations
going throught your current
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
4) What is the cardinality of all computations?
Aleph1.
Actually, it is aleph_0. The set of all computations is
countable. OTOH, the set of all experiences (under COMP) is uncountable
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
4) What is the cardinality of all computations?
Aleph1.
Actually, it is aleph_0. The set of all computations is
countable. OTOH, the set of
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step,
computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving
rise to the 1p indeterminacy.
Quentin
Hi Quentin,
So could we agree that the idea that the universe is
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations
diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p
indeterminacy.
Quentin
Hi Quentin,
So could
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step,
computations diverge into new sets of
On 5/20/2012 9:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
4) What is the cardinality of all computations?
Aleph1.
Actually, it is aleph_0.
I see that the set of all programs is countable.
The set
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step,
computations diverge into new sets of
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations
diverge into new sets of
On 5/21/2012 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2012, at 07:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Yes. Are those entities that exist from the beginning (which is what ontological
primitivity implies...) or are they aspects of the unfolding reality?
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:42:01AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
4) What is the cardinality of all computations?
Aleph1.
Actually, it is
On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM,
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an algorithm,
the physical world is the limit of all computations going throught
your current state... what is computable is your current state, an
infinity of computations goes through it.
2012/5/20 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an algorithm,
the physical world is the limit of all computations going throught your
current state... what is computable is your current
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an algorithm, the physical
world is the limit of all computations going throught your current state... what is
computable is your current state,
On 5/20/2012 10:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
3) Is there at least one physical system running the computations?
No, if the UDA is correct... well technically there still could be a primitive physical
universe, but you could not use it to correctly predict your next moment, nor what you
On 5/20/2012 1:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/20 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an
algorithm, the physical world is the limit of all
On 5/20/2012 3:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an
algorithm, the physical world is the limit of all computations going
throught your current state...
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of numbers that is
equivalent our universe there must exist a computation of the homomorphies between all
possible 4-manifolds.
Why?
Markov theorem tells us that no such homomorphy
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of
numbers that is equivalent our universe there must exist a
computation of the homomorphies between all possible 4-manifolds.
Why?
Hi Brent,
On 5/20/2012 7:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of
numbers that is equivalent our universe there must exist a
computation of the homomorphies
On 5/20/2012 4:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of numbers that is
equivalent our universe there must exist a computation of the homomorphies between
On 5/20/2012 4:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I need to add a remark here. We cannot just assume one particular 4-manifold as the
one we exist on/in. We have to consider the entire ensemble of them to even ask coherent
questions about the one we are in.
But we don't have to assume the
On 5/20/2012 8:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of
numbers that is equivalent our universe there must exist a
On 5/20/2012 6:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 8:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of numbers that
On 5/20/2012 6:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The result is an exhaustive classification of compact 4-mainifolds. The absence of
such a classification neither prevents nor entails the existence of the manifolds.
But you fail to see that without the means to define the manifolds, there is
On 5/20/2012 10:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 8:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an
On 5/20/2012 10:26 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The result is an exhaustive classification of compact 4-mainifolds.
The absence of such a classification neither prevents nor entails
the existence of the manifolds.
But you fail to see that without the
On 5/20/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 10:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 8:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of
numbers that is equivalent our universe there must exist a computation of
the homomorphies
88 matches
Mail list logo
