Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 29 Jul 2016, at 21:30, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> No idea what " two 3-1 "I" " is and very much doubt it is worth knowing. > See preceding posts. I tried that. It didn't help. You might need to be more specific

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> No idea what " two 3-1 "I" " is and very much doubt it is worth >> knowing. > > > See preceding posts. I tried that. It didn't help. >> If computationalism is correct then everything about "you" can >> be

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 28 Jul 2016, at 21:56, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​there are two 3-1 "I", ​No idea what ​ ​"​two 3-1 "I"​ " is ​and very much doubt it is worth knowing. See preceding posts. ​> ​Turing emulable telepathy. ​No

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > there are two 3-1 "I", > ​No idea what ​ ​"​ two 3-1 "I" ​ " is ​ and very much doubt it is worth knowing. > ​> ​ > Turing emulable telepathy. > ​No idea what ​ ​" Turing emulable telepathy ​" is ​ and very

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 28 Jul 2016, at 01:12, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​>>​ ​In the 1-view, which remain both unique from the 1- view. ​>> ​​Then which one has​​ ​THE UNIQUE 1-view, the Moscow man or the Washington ​man? ​> ​Both, from

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> ​In the 1-view, which remain both unique from the 1-view. >> >> > ​>> ​ >> ​Then which one has​ >> ​ >> >> ​*THE UNIQUE* 1-view, the Moscow man or the Washington ​man? >> > ​> ​ > Both, from the 1-p

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 27 Jul 2016, at 00:29, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Bruno ​ ​Marchal wrote: ​>> ​there was supposed to be one new bit of information that is known after the experiment but not before, ​> ​In the 1-view, which remain both unique from the

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Bruno ​ ​ Marchal wrote: > ​>> ​ >> there was supposed to be one new bit of information that is known after >> the experiment but not before, > > ​> ​ > In the 1-view, which remain both unique from the 1-view. > ​Then which one has​ ​*THE

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25 Jul 2016, at 22:40, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​So which one will become the Moscow Man? The one that will see Moscow. What more is there to say? ​> ​That it confirms the prediction "W v M" made in Helsinki,

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> So which one will become the Moscow Man? The one that will see Moscow. >> What more is there to say? > > > ​> ​ > That it confirms the prediction "W v M" made in Helsinki, > ​ But there was supposed to be one new

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25 Jul 2016, at 00:06, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​You betray that you are so much Aristotelian that ​Aristotle was a nitwit. ​ ​>​ It is *the* very idea of Plato that ​Plato was a nitwit.​ ​> ​Aristotle in a

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > You betray that you are so much Aristotelian that > ​Aristotle was a nitwit. ​ > ​>​ > It is *the* very idea of Plato that ​Plato was a nitwit.​ ​> ​ > Aristotle in a nutshell > ​​ > ​Should remain

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

Errata: On 24 Jul 2016, at 16:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is Moscow and not Washington for all of them, and Washington and not Moscow for all for them, but the key point is that both agree that they could not predict that answer in advance, and that when opening the door, they knew in

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jul 2016, at 19:24, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​"our world" cannot be taken as a primitive notion in our setting. ​If nothing else I admire your courage, most people would be embarrassed to admit that they

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > "our world" cannot be taken as a primitive notion in our setting. > ​If nothing else I admire your courage, most people would be embarrassed to admit that they don't accept reality. ​ ​> ​ > QM without collapse

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 21 Jul 2016, at 20:15, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​​"THE FPI" comes from nothing because in a world with FPI duplicating machines ​"THE FPI​" does not exist. ​> ​The FPI requires duplicating machines. ​We haven't

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ >> ​"THE FPI" comes from nothing because in a world with FPI duplicating >> machines ​ >> "THE FPI​" does not exist. >> > > ​> ​ > The FPI requires duplicating machines. > ​We haven't invented duplicating machines

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20 Jul 2016, at 01:31, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​That's right Bruno, keep sweeping those foggy thoughts and fractured logic under the "he" colored personal pronoun rug. ​> ​No problem, ​If there really is no

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> That's right Bruno, keep sweeping those foggy thoughts and fractured >> logic under the "he" colored personal pronoun rug. > > > ​> ​ > No problem, ​If there really is no problem why does Bruno Marchal refuse to

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 18 Jul 2016, at 23:38, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​The Helsinki guy now that he will survive, ​Only if there is a person or if there are persons who remember being the Helsinki guy. ​ No problem. ​> ​and that

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The Helsinki guy now that he will survive, > ​Only if there is a person or if there are persons who remember being the Helsinki guy. ​ > ​> ​ > and that he cannot have the simultaneous first person experience >

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 14 Jul 2016, at 21:49, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>>> ​The better prediction was "W v M and I have no clue which one". ​​>> ​The better prediction about WHAT? ​> ​About the first person experience ​There is no such

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2016, at 10:10, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/14/2016 4:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jul 11,

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15 Jul 2016, at 10:10, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/14/2016 4:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 15 Jul 2016, at 22:16, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​I printed the following "Duplicate Questionnaire" and gave one to both John-Washington, and John-Moscow. The ​ ​ questionnaires each had 8 questions: ​1. What city

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ >> I printed the following "Duplicate Questionnaire" and gave one to both >> John-Washington, and John-Moscow. The >> ​ ​ >> questionnaires each had 8 questions: > > ​1. What city did you last recall being in?

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 7/14/2016 4:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brent Meeker >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2016,

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

I printed the following "Duplicate Questionnaire" and gave one to both John-Washington, and John-Moscow. The questionnaires each had 8 questions: 1. What city did you last recall being in? 2. How many cities do you see now? 3. What is the name of the city you see before you? 4. True/False: You

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ > ​>>> ​ > The better prediction was "W v M and I have no clue which one". ​ > ​>> ​ > The better prediction about WHAT? > > ​> ​ > About the first person experience > ​There is no such thing as *THE* first person

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 7/14/2016 4:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark wrote: On

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 14 Jul 2016, at 00:52, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​Which turned out to be the better prediction, Moscow or Washington?​ And was the prediction about John Clark or was it about some mysterious figure named "you"?

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 13 Jul 2016, at 00:23, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/12/2016 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2016, at 20:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tuesday, 12 July 2016, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > What if John does not want to engage with the argument? > > Shouldn't it be his right to say "no"? > > I'm arriving at the conclusion that his constant replies, negative + > insulting as they are, are actually

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​Which turned out to be the better prediction, Moscow or Washington?​ And >> was the prediction about John Clark or was it about some mysterious figure >> named "you"? > > > ​> ​ > The better prediction was "W v M

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 12 Jul 2016, at 00:15, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​1) Each​ copy saw only one city. ​> ​Excellent! That is the correct 1-view description. Now, you just need to interview each copy about the prediction made in Helsinki and

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > You say that Aristotle is a Nitwit, > ​Yes. ​ > ​> ​ > you seem to defend its main fundamental axiom, made into a dogma by the > Roman Christian (shared by the strong atheists (the non agnostic one) and > the fundamentalist

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 7/12/2016 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2016, at 20:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM,

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 11 Jul 2016, at 22:51, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​I think John Clark's religion has a name,.[ (weak) Materialism] Please quote at least the complete sentence. Wow, calling a guy

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 11 Jul 2016, at 20:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Telmo Menezes

Re: Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> 1) Each >> ​ >> copy saw only one city. > > > ​> ​ > Excellent! That is the correct 1-view description. Now, you just need to > interview each copy about the prediction made in Helsinki and written in > the diary to

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I think John Clark's religion has a name, Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. ​John K Clark​ > -- You received

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> ​>​ >> I'll tell you what I'm sick of, I'm not sick of arguing with you, that's >> ​ ​ >> fun, but I'm sick of Bruno's acting as if his silly homemade acronyms >> should >> ​ ​ >> be well known to every educated person when

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 7/11/2016 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Thanks for illustrating what I just said.

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 09 Jul 2016, at 18:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Thanks for illustrating what I just said. What you just said was: " Most sane

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

What if John does not want to engage with the argument? Shouldn't it be his right to say "no"? I'm arriving at the conclusion that his constant replies, negative + insulting as they are, are actually on par with the weird impatient expectation by you guys "that he should just answer in the

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:25 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 , Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> >> > >> I am sick of >> playing the game > > > Yes I know you said that before, but then why do you continue to play it? Human nature. > >> >> what

Holiday Exercise (was: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

Those tired of Clark's argument can skip up to the (more interesting) Holiday Exercise below. My be this could help Clark to try to find a new argument, as again, he just brought his usual invalid trick, as I show one last times. On 10 Jul 2016, at 19:29, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > you were confusing 1p and 3p. > ​What the hell is confusing about the difference between "I" and "you"? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything ​LESS confusing. > ​> ​ > You confuse 1p and 3p, and then 1-1-p and

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 08 Jul 2016, at 20:13, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​You repeat your confusion between 3p and 3-1p. ​Confusion? We're not talking about Tensor Calculus here! Is there anybody on the face of this planet that is confused

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 , Telmo Menezes wrote: > ​> ​ > I am sick of > ​ ​ > playing the game > ​Yes I know you said that before, but then why do you continue to play it?​ > what I mean by "this game" is the game of > ​ > arguing about the validity of the UDA (and please

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > >> > >> Thanks for illustrating what I just said. > > > What you just said was: > > " > Most sane people sooner or later realize that the

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > ​> ​ > Thanks for illustrating what I just said. > ​What you just said was: ​"​ *Most sane people sooner or later realize that the only way to win this​ ​**game is not to play it* *​*"​ And then I just said:

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> John, >> Let us be completely honest here. You have more or less destroyed this >> mailing list. >> [ long long list of blather

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > You repeat your confusion between 3p and 3-1p. > ​Confusion? We're not talking about Tensor Calculus here! Is there anybody on the face of this planet that is confused by the difference between "I" and "you"? ​ ​> ​

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: John, > ​ ​ > Let us be completely honest here. You have more or less destroyed this > ​ ​ > mailing list. > [* long long list of blather followed b*y]​ > Most sane people sooner or later realize that the only way to

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

John, Let us be completely honest here. You have more or less destroyed this mailing list. It is not that you disagree with something, it is that you use manipulative techniques to score points (the only thing you really seem to care about): - You take people's sentences out of context and reply

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 07 Jul 2016, at 19:05, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​I can stop here. ​> ​That is probably wise. ​But deep down John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't stop here, John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't be wise. ​ > ​but apparently

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> I can stop here. > > ​> ​ > That is probably wise. ​But deep down John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't stop here, John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't be wise. ​ > > ​ > but apparently once you get that there is no

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 06 Jul 2016, at 18:08, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​>>​ ​In Helsinki, we ask John Clark (JC) to make a prediction, not about where JC's two bodies will be reconstituted (everyone knows that the answer here is "in Washington and in

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> >> ​>>​ >> ​ >> In Helsinki, we ask John Clark (JC) to make a prediction, not about where >> JC's two bodies will be reconstituted (everyone knows that the answer here >> is "in Washington and in Moscow" as that is part of the

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 06 Jul 2016, at 01:59, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​In Helsinki, we ask John Clark (JC) to make a prediction, not about where JC's two bodies will be reconstituted (everyone knows that the answer here is "in Washington

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > In Helsinki, we ask John Clark (JC) to make a prediction, not about where > JC's two bodies will be reconstituted (everyone knows that the answer here > is "in Washington and in Moscow" as that is part of the

self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 04 Jul 2016, at 19:20, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​If it's really a well formed question then the personal pronoun "you" could be replaced with "John Clark" , but that can't be done without destroying the value of

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​If it's really a well formed question then the personal pronoun "you" >> could be replaced with "John Clark" , but that can't be done without >> destroying the value of the thought experiment has to the theory. > >

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 04 Jul 2016, at 00:03, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​​Computationalism​ says ​intelligent behavior is caused​ ​by computations​, and I'm saying the same thing.​ ​> ​That is a fuzzy version of computationalism, and the word "cause"

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> ​Computationalism >> ​ says ​ >> intelligent behavior is caused >> ​ ​ >> by computations >> ​, and I'm saying the same thing.​ >> > > ​> ​ > That is a fuzzy version of computationalism, and the word "cause" is > better to

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 01 Jul 2016, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​An​ ​abstract ​universal Turing machine can compute​ ​exactly diddly squat​. A physical ​universal Turing machine ​on the other hand ​can compute ​anything capable

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​An​ >> ​abstract ​ >> universal Turing machine can compute >> ​ ​exactly >> diddly squat >> ​. A physical ​ >> universal Turing machine >> ​on the other hand ​ >> can compute >> ​anything capable of being

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

A second answer, more precise. On 25 Jun 2016, at 03:12, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 03:25, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25 Jun 2016, at 03:12, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 03:25, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 30 Jun 2016, at 20:08, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​A universal Turing machine can compute all Turing computable functions. And also all Lambda computable function, and actually, ​An​ ​abstract ​universal Turing

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 01 Jul 2016, at 00:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/07/2016 3:05 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a coincidence that those who have a difficulty with computationalism, have a difficulty with Everett, and hallucinate spooky action at a distance. Everett, despite your repeated claims,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 1/07/2016 3:05 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a coincidence that those who have a difficulty with computationalism, have a difficulty with Everett, and hallucinate spooky action at a distance. Everett, despite your repeated claims, did not eliminate non-locality from quantum

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > A universal Turing machine can compute all Turing computable functions. > And also all Lambda computable function, and actually, > ​An​ ​abstract ​ universal Turing machine can compute ​ ​exactly diddly squat ​. A

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 28 Jun 2016, at 19:30, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​A definition will tell you absolutely positively 100% NOTHING about the underlying nature of mathematics or physics, it will just tell you things about human

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> A definition will tell you absolutely positively 100% NOTHING about the >> underlying nature of mathematics or physics, it will just tell you things >> about human mathematical notation and language. ​You

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25 Jun 2016, at 10:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 25/06/2016 1:36 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 08:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: . if physics can be seen as possible a simulation run by

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25 Jun 2016, at 09:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 25/06/2016 1:16 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: If we restrict quantum mechanics only to the late phases of the universe, I do not assume a universe. We don't have to assume it -- we observe it,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24 Jun 2016, at 21:47, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Read the definition in the literature, it does not involve physical assumption. ​A definition will tell you absolutely positively 100% NOTHING about the

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24 Jun 2016, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/24/2016 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2016 3:58 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote: But this would include many worlds besides this one with

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > My definition of universe would be something like a causally closed system, > Causal * ​loops​* are paradox generators, if logical paradoxes are now OK then one theory is as good as another and science is dead. ​

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25/06/2016 1:16 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ >> I do not assume a universe. > > Margaret Fuller ​: ​ "I accept the universe" Thomas Carlyle ​:​ "Gad, ​you​ 'd better". ​ John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > You chopped so much out of my e-mail I can't make sense of it > ​You can't make sense out of something *YOU​* ​wrote just 18 hours previously? John K Clark ​ -- You received this message because you are

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25/06/2016 1:36 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 08:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: . if physics can be seen as possible a simulation run by some alien civilization, then physics is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 25/06/2016 1:16 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: If we restrict quantum mechanics only to the late phases of the universe, I do not assume a universe. We don't have to assume it -- we observe it, and we experience it directly, so it is as real as

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:57 PM, John Mikes wrote: > Jason, > you asked 8 questions only. Some of them require volumes to discuss and I > appreciate your > open mind to concentrate your questionnaire to these 8 only. > Thank you. > First: what would you call "physical"? it

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

You chopped so much out of my e-mail I can't make sense of it, nor of your responses. Jason On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> "physical" is anything that is NOT

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:05 PM, John Mikes wrote: JKC: you wrote > *Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but molecules have properties > than atoms don't have, and molecules are more fundamental than life but > life has properties that molecules don't have; in the same

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 24 Jun 2016, at 03:25, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

JKC: you wrote *Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but molecules have properties than atoms don't have, and molecules are more fundamental than life but life has properties that molecules don't have; in the same way consciousness needs intelligent behavior and intelligent behavior needs

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

Jason, you asked 8 questions only. Some of them require volumes to discuss and I appreciate your open mind to concentrate your questionnaire to these 8 only. First: what would you call "physical"? it is our defined meaning according to that limited tiny experience we have about the world. My

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > Read the definition in the literature, it does not involve physical > assumption. ​A definition will tell you absolutely positively 100% NOTHING about the underlying nature of mathematics or physics, it will just

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/24/2016 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2016, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2016 3:58 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote: But this would include many worlds besides this one with vastly different physics. Come Brent, the total

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>> ​ >> "physical" is anything that is NOT nothing. >> ​ ​ >> And "nothing" is anything that is >> infinite >> ​,​ >> unbounded >> ​, and​ >> homogeneous >> ​​ >> ​ in both space and time.​ >> >> > ​> ​ > a Game of Life

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 22:09, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​you've got to give those symbols a meaning, otherwise you're ​just talking about squiggles. And by the way, "=" is just another squiggle. The way we get around

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24 Jun 2016, at 08:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: . if physics can be seen as possible a simulation run by some alien civilization, then physics is certainly Turing emulable. Which is not the

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24 Jun 2016, at 04:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course, like Bohm, you can assume that there are particles, and conspiratorial potential, but that looks like Ptolemeaus epicycles, and worst, they prevent the computationalist theory of

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24 Jun 2016, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2016 3:58 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote: But this would include many worlds besides this one with vastly different physics. Come Brent, the total beauty of computationalism is that there is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24 Jun 2016, at 03:25, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>> ​​I would say it would have to have SOMETHING physical as we know it or it wouldn't

  1   2   3   >