On 19 Jan 2012, at 18:03, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
"And are non computable real numbers fundamental?"
If they can not be derived from anything else, and they can not be,
then they must be fundamental.
If they exist, or need to exist. But t
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
"And are non computable real numbers fundamental?"
>
If they can not be derived from anything else, and they can not be, then
they must be fundamental.
" None occur in any theory."
>
Well they occurred in Turing's 1936 paper and many after
On 17 Jan 2012, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
"You don't need to assume them. They already exists at the natural
numbers' epistemological level."
Then in addition to the natural numbers the non computable numbers
are fundamental too.
But not pr
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
"You don't need to assume them. They already exists at the natural numbers'
> epistemological level."
>
Then in addition to the natural numbers the non computable numbers are
fundamental too.
"Just rememeber that when I use the term "number", I mean a
On 17 Jan 2012, at 17:26, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
" But in computability theory we have only natural numbers. A real
number like PI or e is modeled by a total computable function from N
to N."
Yes, but real numbers like PI or e are very
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
" But in computability theory we have only natural numbers. A real number
> like PI or e is modeled by a total computable function from N to N."
>
Yes, but real numbers like PI or e are very much the exception, they are
rare, quite literally
On 15 Jan 2012, at 18:14, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote:
> How would you generalize the Turing Test for consciousness?
By doing the exact same thing we do when we evaluate our fellow
human beings, assume that there is a direct link between intell
On 15 Jan 2012, at 09:13, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
What about the Turing test for a person in that state to check if he
still has consciousness?
As I said in another post, the very idea of the Turing test consists
in avoiding completely the notion of consciousness.
I do disagree with Turing
On 14 Jan 2012, at 19:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> OK, but today we avoid the expression "computable number".
Why? Seems to me that quite a large number of people still use the
term. A computable number is a real number that can be computed to
any f
On Jan 15, 1:51 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >If consciousness has a survival value [...]
>
> Then consciousness must change behavior and the Turing Test works for
> consciousness as well as intelligence .
Consciousness can change behavior bu
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>If consciousness has a survival value [...]
Then consciousness must change behavior and the Turing Test works for
consciousness as well as intelligence .
> then surely omniscience, teleportation, or the ability to turn into a
> diamond on
On 15 January 2012 17:14, John Clark wrote:
>> > How would you generalize the Turing Test for consciousness?
>
> By doing the exact same thing we do when we evaluate our fellow human
> beings, assume that there is a direct link between intelligent behavior and
> consciousness.
I agree. I reache
On 15 January 2012 16:36, Stephen P. King wrote:
> My questions here go back to this idea of "realities independent of the
> 1p context in which they manifest". This "independence" seems to be the same
> kind of "independence" that I am wrestling with in my debate with Bruno. Is
> it truly indepe
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> > How would you generalize the Turing Test for consciousness?
>
> By doing the exact same thing we do when we evaluate our fellow human
beings, assume that there is a direct link between intelligent behavior and
consciousness. When one of o
Hi David,
On 1/15/2012 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 January 2012 18:56, Stephen P. King wrote:
But the Turing Test is a bit of an oxymoron because it
is impossible to prove the existence of something that is solely 1p. There
is no 3p of consciousness.
I agree, and in a sense this implie
On 14 January 2012 18:56, Stephen P. King wrote:
> But the Turing Test is a bit of an oxymoron because it
> is impossible to prove the existence of something that is solely 1p. There
> is no 3p of consciousness.
I agree, and in a sense this implies the futility of all attempts to
argue from 3p t
On 14.01.2012 19:56 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 1/14/2012 1:15 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must be a byproduct of somethi
On 1/14/2012 1:15 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue,
and the obvious candidat
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue,
and the obvious candidate is intelligence.\
That's not so clear si
On 14.01.2012 17:56 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/14/2012 12:08 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
By t
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> OK, but today we avoid the expression "computable number".
>
Why? Seems to me that quite a large number of people still use the term. A
computable number is a real number that can be computed to any finite
amount of digits by a Turing Machine, howeve
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
> >> There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage
> so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue, and the
> obvious candidate is intelligence.\
>
>
>
> That's not so clear since we don't know exactly what is the r
On 1/14/2012 12:08 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
By the way in the Gray's book the term intelligence is
On 13 Jan 2012, at 17:30, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I am not entirely sure what you mean by computable numbers (I
guess you mean function).
A computable number is a number that can be approximated by a
computable function, and a computable function
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
By the way in the Gray's book the term intelligence is not even
in the index. This was the biggest s
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> That's the default occidental view.
>
You've said something like that before and I get the distinct impression
that you think occidental people should be ashamed of themselves. I don't.
> if it was just genetics, and genetics were just digital, then
On Jan 13, 5:35 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 13.01.2012 22:39 Craig Weinberg said the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >> On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
>
> >>> On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> > We can even ascribe it
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
D
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way conscio
On 13.01.2012 22:39 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
Darwinian advantage)
There is
On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> >>> We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its
> >> Darwinian advantage)
>
> >> There is no way consciousness can have a
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage
so it
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does ha
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
> We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its Darwinian
advantage)
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage so it must be a
byproduct of something that does have that virtue, and the obvious candidate is
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I am not entirely sure what you mean by computable numbers (I guess you
> mean function).
>
A computable number is a number that can be approximated by a computable
function, and a computable function is a function that can be evaluated
with a mechan
On Jan 12, 4:18 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if
> >> you understand it you know the logic behind it.
>
> > > That's a false assumption. I can understand something whether or not
>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > > If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if
>> you understand it you know the logic behind it.
>>
>
>
> > That's a false assumption. I can understand something whether or not
> it has logic behind it.
>
>
You can know
On 12 Jan 2012, at 06:24, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> however we don't know that there is a explanation for everything,
some things might be fundamental.
> In the case of elementary arithmetic, we can even explain why we
cannot explain it by something more fundamental. There
On 11 Jan 2012, at 18:07, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 17:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jan 2012, at 12:58, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
To put it more simply: if Church Turing Thesis(CTT) is correct,
mathematics is the same for
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> however we don't know that there is a explanation for everything,
>> some things might be fundamental.
>>
>
>
> > In the case of elementary arithmetic, we can even explain why we
> cannot explain it by something more fundamental. There are logical
> reason for that. But
On Jan 11, 12:24 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > There is more to understanding than logic.
>
> If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if you
> understand it you know the logic behind it.
That's a false assumption. I
On 1/10/2012 17:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jan 2012, at 12:58, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
To put it more simply: if Church Turing Thesis(CTT) is correct,
mathematics is the same for any system or being you can imagine.
I
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> There is more to understanding than logic.
>
If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if you
understand it you know the logic behind it.
>It says very clearly that the changes are not random - ie, they are
> intent
On 10 Jan 2012, at 18:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2012 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, that strong form of CT might already be false with comp,
only in the 1p sense as you get a free random oracle as well as
always staying consistent(and 'alive'), but it's not false in the
3p view
On 1/10/2012 12:48 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2012 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, that strong form of CT might already be false with comp,
only in the 1p sense as you get a free random oracle as well as
always staying consistent(and 'alive'), but it's not false in the 3p
view...
Ye
On 1/10/2012 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, that strong form of CT might already be false with comp, only in the 1p sense
as you get a free random oracle as well as always staying consistent(and 'alive'), but
it's not false in the 3p view...
Yes. Comp makes physics a first person plur
On 10 Jan 2012, at 12:58, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
To put it more simply: if Church Turing Thesis(CTT) is correct,
mathematics is the same for any system or being you can imagine.
I am not sure why. "Sigma_1 arithmetic" wou
On Jan 10, 12:40 am, John Clark wrote:
> Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >No free will = no hunger. No need for it. No mechanism for it. No logic to
> > it.
>
> Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
The old 'stick your fingers in your ears and say lalalalalala' trick.
Impress
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
On 1/9/2012 19:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Crai
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
On 1/9/2012 19:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are
Craig Weinberg wrote:
>No free will = no hunger. No need for it. No mechanism for it. No logic to
> it.
>
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
> That was my point. Knowing how to eat does not require logic or induction.
But your question was "Is it induction that p
On Jan 9, 12:56 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or natural
> > law,
>
> If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's true that
> Y can be nothing and thus the exist
On 1/9/2012 19:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are physical. That's the revisionist concept
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
> >> computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
> >> computation, defe
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
computation, defended by Deustch, Landauer, etc. Computations have
been discov
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
> computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
> computation, defended by Deustch, Landauer, etc. Computations have
> been discovered by mathematicians when trying to expalin
On 08 Jan 2012, at 18:03, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
> I don't see any logic or induction in the assertion that the only
possible epistemological sources for Homo sapiens must be logic or
induction.
What other pathway to knowledge do you pr
On 09 Jan 2012, at 06:56, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or
natural law,
If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's
true that Y can be nothing and thus the e
On Dec 22 2011, 12:18 pm, alexalex wrote:
> Hello, Everythinglisters!
>
> The below text is a philosophical essay on what qualia may represent.
> I doubt you'll manage to finish reading it (it's kind of long, and
> translated from anoter language), but if you do I'll be happy to hear
> your opin
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or natural
> law,
>
If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's true that
Y can be nothing and thus the existence of X is random, but let's assume
that Y is
On Jan 8, 12:03 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > I don't see any logic or induction in the assertion that the only
> > possible epistemological sources for Homo sapiens must be logic or
> > induction.
>
> What other pathway to knowledge do you pro
On 8 January 2012 04:57, John Clark wrote:
> Yes Turing was persecuted but his unjust treatment was caused by his privet
> life and had nothing to do with his scientific ideas.
Interesting...I didn't know that Turing was persecuted for his
unpopular views about hedging.
David
> From Wikipedia
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I don't see any logic or induction in the assertion that the only
> possible epistemological sources for Homo sapiens must be logic or
> induction.
>
What other pathway to knowledge do you propose? Well OK there is direct
experience. I think
On 08 Jan 2012, at 06:06, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You confuse naturalism (nature exists
I hope we don't have to debate if nature exists or not.
Of course, nature exists (very plausibly).
But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You confuse naturalism (nature exists
>
I hope we don't have to debate if nature exists or not.
> and is fundamental/primitive)
>
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to dislike naturalism so you think
there is no such thing as a
fundamental/primitiv
>From Wikipedia:
> "Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when
> homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom. He accepted
> treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to
> prison. He died in 1954, just over two weeks before his
On 07 Jan 2012, at 13:13, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> I took a look, and I really think that Feyerabend confuses science
> and science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position and
> power.
I would agree in a sense that Feyerabend states that in the human
society there is "science-done-by-w
On 07 Jan 2012, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/7/2012 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You confuse naturalism (nature exists and is fundamental/primitive)
and rationalism (things works by and for a reason).
The first is the main axiom of Aristotle theology, the second
defines the general scien
On 1/7/2012 10:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.01.2012 18:15 John Clark said the following:
Feyerabend Wrote:
"Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed
for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with
science. It has something to do with the general quali
On 1/7/2012 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You confuse naturalism (nature exists and is fundamental/primitive) and rationalism
(things works by and for a reason).
The first is the main axiom of Aristotle theology, the second defines the general
scientific attitude.
Today we know that they oppose
On 1/7/2012 12:59 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 23:11 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates
also very often the point.
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
On 07.01.2012 18:15 John Clark said the following:
Feyerabend Wrote:
"Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed
for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with
science. It has something to do with the general quality of our
civilization. Heretics in science a
On 07.01.2012 17:21 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
You are free to express your opinion and I am free to express
mine. Don't
you agree?
Yes, and Feyerabend should be free to say anything that pops into his
head no matter how silly, and
> Feyerabend Wrote:
>
> "Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for
> joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has
> something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in
> science are still made to suffer from the most sev
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >You are free to express your opinion and I am free to express mine. Don't
> you agree?
>
Yes, and Feyerabend should be free to say anything that pops into his head
no matter how silly, and I should be free to call him an idiot for doing s
> I took a look, and I really think that Feyerabend confuses science
> and science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position and
> power.
I would agree in a sense that Feyerabend states that in the human
society there is "science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position
and power" on
Hi Evgenii,
On 06 Jan 2012, at 19:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der
Wahrheit where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free
Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that book and have found
in Internet
Paul Feye
On 06 Jan 2012, at 23:11, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates
also very often the point.
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
> The church was asking to Galileo to pre
On 06.01.2012 22:28 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
This does not mean that everybody has to agree with him
[Feyerabend] but a statement about an idiot looks exaggerated.
If one can not use the word "idiot" to refer to someone who says
th
On 06.01.2012 23:11 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates
also very often the point.
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
The church was asking to Galileo to prese
On 06.01.2012 20:44 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 10:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der
Wahrheit where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free
Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that book and have
fou
On Jan 6, 10:33 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> Only one reason, we can't make a good enough simulation for that because
> >> we don't have enough INFORMATION.
>
> > >If our contemporary knowledge of physics is so complete, then that should
> >
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>But you are right, Feyerabend is no idiot. He is insightful. He knows
> that reputation in philosophy is most easily gained by taking a position
> contrary to common wisdom.
>
If Feyerabend believed what he said about Galileo then he is an idiot
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Only one reason, we can't make a good enough simulation for that because
>> we don't have enough INFORMATION.
>>
>
> >If our contemporary knowledge of physics is so complete, then that should
> be all the information we need.
>
I don't kn
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates also
> very often the point.
>
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
> > The church was asking to Galileo to present his view as a theory or
> conjecture
What
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> This does not mean that everybody has to agree with him [Feyerabend] but
> a statement about an idiot looks exaggerated.
>
If one can not use the word "idiot" to refer to someone who says things
like "The church at the time of Galileo was
On 1/6/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Whatever the numbers I'm sure you take my point that the number of
citations has very little to do with the correctness or importance of
an author. Nobody cites Isaac Newton in physics papers anymore.
Brent
Run Isaac Newton in the Google Scholar and
On 06.01.2012 21:15 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 12:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
I do not know, I cannot exclude that German authorities have some
censorship in Internet (or Google censors its content to Germany)
but when I run Google scholar
http://scholar.google.com/
and t
On 1/6/2012 12:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 11:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan
On 06.01.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 11:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
This st
On 1/6/2012 10:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der Wahrheit where he has also
reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that
book and have found in Internet
Paul Feyerabend, 1975
How To De
On 1/6/2012 11:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
This statement contradict to a normal scientific world vi
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
This statement contradict to a normal scientific world view but it
is based on historical facts. Hence
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember
Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way
Galileo has made scie
On 1/6/2012 1:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.01.2012 06:29 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig
Weinbergwrote:
Sure, our belief in simulations can make them seem quite realistic
to us. That doesn't make them real though.
And so simulators join a long long
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der Wahrheit
where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society. Today
I wanted to learn more about that book and have found in Internet
Paul Feyerabend, 1975
How To Defend Society Against Science
http://www.galil
On 06 Jan 2012, at 17:54, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember
Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way
Galileo has ma
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember
Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way
Galileo has made science a lot and his conclusion:
"The churc
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember Feyerabend
> (for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way Galileo has
> made science a lot and his conclusion:
>
> "The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful
On 05.01.2012 06:29 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig
Weinbergwrote:
Sure, our belief in simulations can make them seem quite realistic
to us. That doesn't make them real though.
And so simulators join a long long long list of things that you say
are not re
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
