Le 09-mai-07, à 18:50, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Of course reality doesn't change. The question of map versus
territory is *not* an all or nothing
question. *sometimes* the map equals the territory. Most of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Infinite sets and infinitesimals are a lot more than 'mathematical
conveniences'. There are precise logical theories for these things
(As I mentioned before - Cantor worked out
On May 9, 6:46 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 5:57 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can Everett's every possibility is realized be logically compatible
with Bohm's there's only one, deterministic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 5:57 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can Everett's every possibility is realized be logically compatible
with Bohm's there's only one, deterministic outcome, we just don't know
which one and Griffith's it's a
On May 9, 6:46 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But according to your map=territory philosophy all these incompatible
theories exist physically. What does that mean? All but one of them must
describe some other universe and we just don't know which ones? Or do you
mean they
On May 9, 5:55 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what is mathematics? It's three things I think: Categories,
Relations and Propositions. Of these, Relations and Propositions
refer to discrete (finite) knowledge. But Categories includes the
other two, since categories can also deal with
Le 09-mai-07, à 06:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
It's true that consistency/precise alone doesn't imply
existence, but they are factors that one can take into account.
OK. But consistency of a mathematical theory having sufficiently rich
models so that they support self-observing
Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Of course reality doesn't change. The question of map versus
territory is *not* an all or nothing
question. *sometimes* the map equals the territory. Most of the time
it does not.
This is an important point where I agree with Marc.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Of course reality doesn't change. The question of map versus
territory is *not* an all or nothing
question. *sometimes* the map equals the territory. Most of the time
it does not.
This is an important point
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well of course I agree with you in this case. 'Election' is a human
construct. That's why it was a horrifyingly unfortunate typo on my
point. The point is that if you try to apply the same reasoning to
everything, you'll end up saying
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism.
(1) Infinite Sets
But there is no infinite set of anything.
Says who? The point is that infinite sets appear to be
On May 8, 6:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but the theory is our idea of that partial match and is a human
construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the
objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not something separate to
the
Le 08-mai-07, à 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Say what!! this is not a valid analogy since the laws of physics are
absolutely the fundamental level of reality, where as dsecriptions of
chimpanzee behaviour are not.
What makes you so sure. This is a physicalist assumption, and it has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course.
Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly
are not regarded that way by scientists
They are by the scientists I know.
The *knowledge* we have of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism.
(1) Infinite Sets
But there is no infinite set of anything.
Says who? The point is that infinite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 6:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but the theory is our idea of that partial match and is a human
construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the
objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not
On May 9, 5:59 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So in the case of useful concepts there has to be a partial
match between the information content of the concepts and the
information content of reality. This means we can infer properties
about reality
On May 9, 6:08 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism.
(1) Infinite Sets
But there is no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 6:08 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets
But
On 05/05/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that
all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the
properties of its components.
A weaker property is supervenience. Something A supervenes on the
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 07:50:21PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 05/05/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that
all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the
properties of its
On May 7, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have here a clear example of an indispensible *physical* concept
which *cannot* be broken down or reduced to any finite lower level
descriptions. This proves that
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course.
Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave
Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields
are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say that QM
fields are just human
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 7, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have here a clear example of an indispensible *physical* concept
which *cannot* be broken down or reduced to any finite lower level
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course.
Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave
Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields
are fundamental (at least as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course.
Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave
Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields
are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say
On May 8, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course.
Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave
Functions' then, since surely
On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly
are not regarded that way by scientists
They are by the scientists I know.
The *knowledge* we have of the laws of physics are human
On May 6, 12:03 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that 'coarse graining' could provide a means for time
to 'stratify' into different levels. Now let me elaborate a little.
Coarse graining is the
On May 5, 6:21 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that coarse graining is of supreme importance to cognition,
and this was bourne out in a conversation I had with a cognitive
science researcher from the Centre for the Mind the other day.
That's good news. Glad we
On 06/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-reductive materialism *doesn't* say that a person's person state
could be different even though his physical state is unchanged. If it
did, you are right, it wouldn't be materialism. In all forms of
materialism, the person's mental
On May 6, 10:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-reductive materialism *doesn't* say that a person's person state
could be different even though his physical state is unchanged. If it
did, you are right, it
On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, I don't think this has any bearing on reductionism. The scientific
method is
about how we are to go about discovering scientific truths, just as the
adversarial method in a court of law is about how to decide guilt or
innocence
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 02:06:36PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I'm not sure that it is necessary to consider the laws of physics a separate
ontological category. A zoologist might study the behaviour of chimpanzees,
take notes, and summarise these notes in a paper for others to read
On 05/05/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly, chimpanzees are names given to a certain collection of
chemicals that happens to behave in a particular way. The rules of
chimpanzee behaviour are fully emergent from the rules of chemistry.
In your book you say that
Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that
all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the
properties of its components.
A weaker property is supervenience. Something A supervenes on the
physics of its component parts U if two different states of
MG:
'There is no doubt that the nature of consciousness is closely
associated with time in some way - but exactly how? The relationship
between time (time flow and also causality) may be far closer than
many realize. Could consciousness in fact be *identical* to time in
some peculiar sense?
On May 5, 10:05 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MG:
'There is no doubt that the nature of consciousness is closely
associated with time in some way - but exactly how? The relationship
between time (time flow and also causality) may be far closer than
many realize. Could
On 04/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that 'coarse graining' could provide a means for time
to 'stratify' into different levels. Now let me elaborate a little.
Coarse graining is the 'level of detail' at which we observe reality.
If we observe reality 'with a
MG:
Well, again, this is a functional description of *some*
aspects of
consciousness with which we are familiar. I would say that
consciousness in general does not require does not require a self
model. Reflection on the motivation system generates self-awareness I
think, but other types
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:07:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Been thinking about Bruno's often talked 1st person/3rd Person
division. Had a series of insights that seem to connect up to some
ideas of my own.
Essentially my idea resolves around 'coarse graining' and the
possibility
I think of time from the third person perspective as being simply a higher
spatial dimension above 3 dimensional volume in the same way that 3
dimensional volume exists above 2 dimensional area. In other words it's
really the same as the other dimensions.
So your comment about 3 dimensional
On May 5, 1:59 am, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think of time from the third person perspective as being simply a higher
spatial dimension above 3 dimensional volume in the same way that 3
dimensional volume exists above 2 dimensional area. In other words it's
really the same as
44 matches
Mail list logo
