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
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
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)?
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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 + +
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
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
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 +
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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'.
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 7/17/2011 2:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto: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
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
**
On 7/17/2011 2:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
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
1 - 100 of 227 matches
Mail list logo
