Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-30 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Nevertheless I think truth and goodness are very intimately related. Plato and Plotinus identify God and the Good. Now, this is related to very subtle point with the comp hyp. Like you, and like all Platonist, I

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-30 Thread benjayk
I just had an interesting idea with regards to our ontological/epistemological debate. Could it be that the number 0 is conscious itself, by virtue of being itself (and all numbers share that property, because the make just sense relative to 0)? This would pretty much merge our ideas, because we

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 30 Aug 2011, at 16:13, benjayk wrote: I just had an interesting idea with regards to our ontological/epistemological debate. Could it be that the number 0 is conscious itself, by virtue of being itself (and all numbers share that property, because the make just sense relative to 0)?

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Aug 2011, at 00:23, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2011, at 13:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote: I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it unsatisfying to discuss details that are very easy

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-29 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2011, at 00:23, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2011, at 13:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote: I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it unsatisfying to

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Aug 2011, at 13:01, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I guess you would change your mind on this if you knew about first order logic. Above the choice of the theory, which can always been considered as emotional, the working *in* the theory, not only does not depend on emotion,

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote: I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it unsatisfying to discuss details that are very easy to see for me, yet hardly communicable. Honestly, for all intents and purposes I have come to the conclusion that it is just

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-28 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote: I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it unsatisfying to discuss details that are very easy to see for me, yet hardly communicable. Honestly, for all intents and purposes I have come to the

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-28 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2011, at 13:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote: I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it unsatisfying to discuss details that are very easy to see for me, yet hardly

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-26 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Aren't you restricting your notion of what is explainable of what your own theory labels explainable with its own assumptions? Yes, but this is due to its TOE aspect: it explains what

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Aug 2011, at 21:34, meekerdb wrote: On 8/24/2011 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 Qu = B^(5^60) La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 Th + 2Z = B^5 L = U + TTh E = Y + MTh N = Q^16 R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-25 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Aren't you restricting your notion of what is explainable of what your own theory labels explainable with its own assumptions? Yes, but this is due to its TOE aspect: it explains what explanation are, and what we can hope to be 100% explainable, and what we

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Aren't you restricting your notion of what is explainable of what your own theory labels explainable with its own assumptions? Yes, but this is due to its TOE aspect: it explains what explanation are, and what we can hope

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-24 Thread meekerdb
On 8/24/2011 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 Qu = B^(5^60) La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 Th + 2Z = B^5 L = U + TTh E = Y + MTh N = Q^16 R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) + [Q^3 -BL +

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-22 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Aug 2011, at 22:43, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Aug 2011, at 18:49, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Aug 2011, at 20:13, benjayk wrote: Hm... OK. I am not sure that there are valid 3-communicable theories about fundamental

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Aug 2011, at 18:49, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Aug 2011, at 20:13, benjayk wrote: It depends on what we mean with primitive ontological entity. What we assume to exist (or to make sense) explicitly when we build a theory. You could define this as primitive

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-20 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Aug 2011, at 18:49, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Aug 2011, at 20:13, benjayk wrote: It depends on what we mean with primitive ontological entity. What we assume to exist (or to make sense) explicitly when we build a theory. You could

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-19 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Aug 2011, at 20:13, benjayk wrote: It depends on what we mean with primitive ontological entity. What we assume to exist (or to make sense) explicitly when we build a theory. You could define this as primitive ontological entity, but honestly this

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Aug 2011, at 17:27, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2011, at 20:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on consciousness is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-18 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Aug 2011, at 17:27, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2011, at 20:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on consciousness is that it may not assume

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-17 Thread John Mikes
Brent wrote about my questioning 'energy': *Hmm. It's the 00 component of the stress-energy tensor. It's the Hamiltonian, the time evolution operator. It's not a thing*. Brent, you may know better than that: 1. I did not restrict my inquiry to 'things' (is e.g. a 'refutation' a thing? but you

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-17 Thread meekerdb
On 8/17/2011 9:01 AM, John Mikes wrote: Brent wrote about my questioning 'energy': */Hmm. It's the 00 component of the stress-energy tensor. It's the Hamiltonian, the time evolution operator. It's not a thing/*. Brent, you may know better than that: 1. I did not restrict my inquiry to

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-17 Thread John Mikes
Thanks, Brent, I chose the wrong wording to Stathis. John On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 8/17/2011 9:01 AM, John Mikes wrote: Brent wrote about my questioning 'energy': *Hmm. It's the 00 component of the stress-energy tensor. It's the

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Pilar Morales pilarmorales...@gmail.com wrote: Does Comp address ego little or not, or super human powers, or theory brewing? How about miracles, and temporarily apparent, and non-repeatable, break down of laws of physics? For example, in the early 1900s,

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-16 Thread Pilar Morales
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Pilar Morales pilarmorales...@gmail.com wrote: Does Comp address ego little or not, or super human powers, or theory brewing? How about miracles, and temporarily apparent, and

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Aug 2011, at 20:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on consciousness is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't mean it's independent of it, or prior to it. I would say of

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-16 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2011, at 20:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on consciousness is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't mean it's independent of it, or prior

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-16 Thread John Mikes
Stathis, do you have a reasonable opinion about whatever you (and physicists?) call: *energy*? (Not how to measure it, not what it does, not the result of 'it', or quantitative relations, or kinds you differentiate, but 'is it a thing'? where it comes from and how? i.e. an i*dentification of the

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-16 Thread meekerdb
On 8/16/2011 9:27 AM, John Mikes wrote: Stathis, do you have a reasonable opinion about whatever you (and physicists?) call: */_energy_/*? (Not how to measure it, not what it does, not the result of 'it', or quantitative relations, or kinds you differentiate, but 'is it a thing'? where it

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-15 Thread Pilar Morales
Does Comp address ego little or not, or super human powers, or theory brewing? How about miracles, and temporarily apparent, and non-repeatable, break down of laws of physics? For example, in the early 1900s, there was a man walking through the woods and found himself staring at someone, just as

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2011, at 20:09, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2011, at 23:07, benjayk wrote: We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain what I mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey. Probably I am trying to argue something

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-15 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on consciousness is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't mean it's independent of it, or prior to it. I would say of course, except that independent and 'prior are a

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Aug 2011, at 23:07, benjayk wrote: We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain what I mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey. Probably I am trying to argue something that is incommunicable, like you kindly reminded me. On many levels

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-14 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2011, at 23:07, benjayk wrote: We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain what I mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey. Probably I am trying to argue something that is incommunicable, like you

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-13 Thread benjayk
We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain what I mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey. Probably I am trying to argue something that is incommunicable, like you kindly reminded me. On many levels I could just agree with you. But on a very

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-11 Thread meekerdb
On 8/10/2011 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: And interesting choice of examples since that exactly what man has done. The speed of light is nothing but a conversion constant between units. In 1983 the speed of light in SI units was *defined* to be 299,792,458 m/s. Umm, not so fast.

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 8/11/2011 2:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/10/2011 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: And interesting choice of examples since that exactly what man has done. The speed of light is nothing but a conversion constant between units. In 1983 the speed of light in SI units was *defined* to be

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-11 Thread meekerdb
On 8/11/2011 12:03 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/11/2011 2:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/10/2011 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: And interesting choice of examples since that exactly what man has done. The speed of light is nothing but a conversion constant between units. In 1983 the speed

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-10 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Aug 2011, at 20:56, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Aug 2011, at 21:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Then computer science provides a theory of consciousness, and explains how

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Aug 2011, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote: What more evidence would you need to believe mathematical objects exist? I haven't seen any evidence yet. Mathematical objects are inventions of our minds dependent on language. Are you not confusing human mathematical theories and the

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-10 Thread meekerdb
On 8/9/2011 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: That is explained as an illusion in GR for an eternal black hole. In Susskinds theory the in-falling person is both smeared (in strings) on the horizon and *also* destroyed in the singularity, so that when the BH evaporates the

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread meekerdb
On 8/8/2011 9:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com mailto:benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: I am getting a bit tired of labouring this point, but honestly your theory is postulating something that seems

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread Jason Resch
On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/8/2011 9:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: I am getting a bit tired of labouring this point, but honestly your theory is postulating

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: I am getting a bit tired of labouring this point, but honestly your theory is postulating something that seems nonsensical to me. Why on earth would I believe in the truth of something

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You fail to explain how the truth of 17 is prime depends on consciousness. You confuse the truth of 17 is prime with the individual belief or knowledge that 17 is prime. Mathematicians believes that 17 is prime is far

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread meekerdb
On 8/9/2011 7:37 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/8/2011 9:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com mailto:benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 8/9/2011 7:37 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/8/2011 9:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, benjayk

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread meekerdb
On 8/9/2011 1:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/9/2011 7:37 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-09 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 8/9/2011 1:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/9/2011 7:37 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-08 Thread benjayk
John Mikes wrote: benjayk wrote: *Sorry, I can't follow you... You do not accept the concept of consciousness **and then want an origin for it?* I see you did not follow me... I asked for some identification to that mystical noumenon we are talking about exactly* to make it

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Aug 2011, at 21:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Then computer science provides a theory of consciousness, and explains how consciousness emerges from numbers, How can consciousness be shown to emerge from numbers when it is

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Aug 2011, at 21:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Then computer science provides a theory of consciousness, and explains how consciousness emerges from numbers, How can consciousness be shown to

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-08 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: I am getting a bit tired of labouring this point, but honestly your theory is postulating something that seems nonsensical to me. Why on earth would I believe in the truth of something that *can never be known in

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Aug 2011, at 23:14, benjayk wrote: Frankly I am a bit tired of this debate (to some extent debating in general), so I will not respond in detail any time soon (if at all). Don't take it as total disinterest, I found our exchange very interesting, I am just not in the mood at the

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-07 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2011, at 23:14, benjayk wrote: Frankly I am a bit tired of this debate (to some extent debating in general), so I will not respond in detail any time soon (if at all). Don't take it as total disinterest, I found our exchange very interesting, I am

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Aug 2011, at 15:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2011, at 23:14, benjayk wrote: Frankly I am a bit tired of this debate (to some extent debating in general), so I will not respond in detail any time soon (if at all). Don't take it as total disinterest, I found

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-07 Thread John Mikes
Dear benjamin if this is your name (benjayk?) if the unsigned text is yours, of course: I believe this post is not 'joining' the chorus of the debate. Or is it? Benjayk wrote: *Consciousness is simply a given* OK, if you just disclose ANYTHING about it as you formulate that 'given'. Your(?) logic

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-07 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Then computer science provides a theory of consciousness, and explains how consciousness emerges from numbers, How can consciousness be shown to emerge from numbers when it is already assumed at the start? In

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-07 Thread benjayk
John Mikes wrote: Dear benjamin if this is your name (benjayk?) Yep. John Mikes wrote: I believe this post is not 'joining' the chorus of the debate. Or is it? Benjayk wrote: *Consciousness is simply a given* OK, if you just disclose ANYTHING about it as you formulate that 'given'.

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-07 Thread John Mikes
benjayk wrote: *Sorry, I can't follow you... You do not accept the concept of consciousness **and then want an origin for it?* I see you did not follow me... I asked for some identification to that mystical noumenon we are talking about exactly* to make it acceptable for discussion*. T H E N -

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Aug 2011, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote: On 8/5/2011 9:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp already shows that it take the form of an uncertainty calculus on computations. From comp it is easy to derive indeterminacy/ uncertainty, non locality, non clonability of the apparent primitive

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-06 Thread meekerdb
On 8/6/2011 12:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2011, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote: On 8/5/2011 9:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp already shows that it take the form of an uncertainty calculus on computations. From comp it is easy to derive indeterminacy/uncertainty, non locality, non

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-06 Thread benjayk
Frankly I am a bit tired of this debate (to some extent debating in general), so I will not respond in detail any time soon (if at all). Don't take it as total disinterest, I found our exchange very interesting, I am just not in the mood at the moment to discuss complex topics at length. Bruno

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Aug 2011, at 20:38, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jul 2011, at 19:31, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The notion of a TOE usually is used in a reductionist sense, as a theory that can be used to predict everything. A TOE should do that, in principle at

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-05 Thread meekerdb
On 8/5/2011 9:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp already shows that it take the form of an uncertainty calculus on computations. From comp it is easy to derive indeterminacy/uncertainty, non locality, non clonability of the apparent primitive matter. From comp + the classical theory of

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-04 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jul 2011, at 19:31, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The notion of a TOE usually is used in a reductionist sense, as a theory that can be used to predict everything. A TOE should do that, in principle at least. Of course it should be able to predict

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-08-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Jul 2011, at 19:31, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The notion of a TOE usually is used in a reductionist sense, as a theory that can be used to predict everything. A TOE should do that, in principle at least. Of course it should be able to predict everything which is

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: OK. Remember the goal, to find the, or a, TOE. What I suggest, at least, is that with comp, any first order logical specification of any universal machine, will do. Well, okay. I just get the feeling that a TOE doesn't

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: OK. Remember the goal, to find the, or a, TOE. What I suggest, at least, is that with comp, any first order logical specification of any universal machine, will do. Well, okay. I just get the feeling that a TOE doesn't

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: OK. Remember the goal, to find the, or a, TOE. What I suggest, at least, is that with comp, any first order logical specification of any universal machine, will do. Well, okay. I just get the feeling that a TOE doesn't

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Jul 2011, at 16:14, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: OK. Remember the goal, to find the, or a, TOE. What I suggest, at least, is that with comp, any first order logical specification of any universal machine, will do. Well, okay. I

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic just happens to be powerful enough to point towards it. All other universal systems accomplish the same. So to say just number relations exist and all else is an epistemological view on that is a very narrow interpretation. Arithmetical truth

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Jul 2011, at 18:24, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic just happens to be powerful enough to point towards it. All other universal systems accomplish the same. So to say just number relations exist and all else is an epistemological view on that is a very narrow

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: The notion of a TOE usually is used in a reductionist sense, as a theory that can be used to predict everything. A TOE should do that, in principle at least. Of course it should be able to predict everything which is predictible, in the right condition. No one

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-31 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jul 2011, at 18:24, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic just happens to be powerful enough to point towards it. All other universal systems accomplish the same. So to say just number relations exist and all else is an epistemological view on

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-27 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Yes. A tiny part of arithmetic is already sufficiently rich to implement (in the original mathematical sense) very complex emulation bearing entities much powerfull than that tiny arithmetical entities, and those can

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-27 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, bad luck. Then you have to play this game until you get tired of it. If that can happen. I hope so! Playing is great, but every particular game is boring at some point. Not the

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Jul 2011, at 15:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, bad luck. Then you have to play this game until you get tired of it. If that can happen. I hope so! Playing is great, but every particular game is

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Jul 2011, at 15:36, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Yes. A tiny part of arithmetic is already sufficiently rich to implement (in the original mathematical sense) very complex emulation bearing entities much powerfull than that tiny

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 26 Jul 2011, at 19:11, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi benjayk, I might comment other paragraphs later, but for reason of time and business, I will just go on some points. No problem, comment on what you want and when you feel like doing it. OK. Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi benjayk, I might comment other paragraphs later, but for reason of time and business, I will just go on some points. On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: You can expect that a theory which unify all force will not be *that* simple. Now, with comp, if you like simplicity, you should

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi benjayk, I might comment other paragraphs later, but for reason of time and business, I will just go on some points. No problem, comment on what you want and when you feel like doing it. Bruno Marchal wrote: You can expect that a theory which unify all force

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, bad luck. Then you have to play this game until you get tired of it. If that can happen. I hope so! Playing is great, but every particular game is boring at some point. Not the infinite games. In infinite games

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: OK. Remember the goal, to find the, or a, TOE. What I suggest, at least, is that with comp, any first order logical specification of any universal machine, will do. Well, okay. I just get the feeling that a TOE doesn't really exist. You just have a

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread meekerdb
On 7/26/2011 10:11 AM, benjayk wrote: Peace really only comes when you get comfortable with falling As an old motorcycle racer, I agree completely. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: And once the observer is defined by the LUM (Löbian universal machine), we can extract from addition and multiplication, the whole UP-theology (GOD, NOÙS and UNIVERSAL SOUL, and the down-theology: INTELLIGIBLE MATTER and SENSIBLE

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Exercise: 1) show that 1 has 8 clothes. (easy) example of clothes for 1 (1^2+0^2+0^2+0^2, 0^2+1^2+0^2+0^2, (-1)^2+0^2+0^2+0^2, ...) 2) show that 2 has 24 clothes (easy but longer) 3) show that all numbers have clothes (very difficult) 4) well Jacobi

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote: Yes. A tiny part of arithmetic is already sufficiently rich to implement (in the original mathematical sense) very complex emulation bearing entities much powerfull than that tiny arithmetical entities, and those can become lucid on the web of

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-25 Thread benjayk
Worms are probably between humans and inanimate objects in this respect. There consciouss blurs quite much, but less so than that of your tables. It's probably experienced as a consistent, but very blurry life, outside of drug trips and the like. This question was adressed in a dream that I had

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-23 Thread benjayk
I just thought about this statement: He might just play the game of pretending to want to keep control to see how ludicrous and futile this is. Well, I'd like to contradict this. It's futile and ludicrous if taken as the ultimate truth. Being and becoming is beyond control. But on a relative

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-22 Thread terren
Hey Bruno, I have done some thinking and reformulated my thoughts about our ongoing discussion. To sum up my (intuitive) objection, I have struggled to understand how you make the leap from the consciousness of abstract logical machines to human consciousness. I now have an argument that I

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Terren, On 22 Jul 2011, at 20:51, terren wrote: I have done some thinking and reformulated my thoughts about our ongoing discussion. To sum up my (intuitive) objection, I have struggled to understand how you make the leap from the consciousness of abstract logical machines to human

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-18 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more,

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. I didn't write I

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread meekerdb
On 7/17/2011 10:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com mailto:benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/17/2011 10:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/17/2011 1:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread benjayk
benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective

  1   2   3   >