Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 05 Nov 2015, at 20:21, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​ it is true independently of me verify it or not. That is why I can say that I am sure that Goldbach conjecture is true or not, that Riemann hypothesis is true or not.

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 04 Nov 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​If sentence X says "2+2=5" then sentence X expresses a numerical relationship, that association may or may not belong to the category "true" but it's certainly a

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ​>​ > it is true independently of me verify it or not. That is why I can say > that I am sure that Goldbach conjecture is true or not, that Riemann > hypothesis is true or not. I accept the excluded middle > ​I agree,

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 6 November 2015 at 06:21, John Clark wrote: > > ​I don't confuse a damn thing. Neither a "​universal dovetailer" nor > anything else can write *ONLY* correct programs (or *ONLY* correct > anything) without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > But those

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Thursday, 5 November 2015, John Clark wrote: ​It would be trivially easy to write a program that would generate all > correct textbooks in mathematics and physics of 1000 pages or less, but it > would be *ASTRONOMICALLY* more difficult to generate **only** correct >

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 03:15:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 4/11/2015 1:26 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:59:41AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>I disagree. I do not think the quantum mechanics /ab initio/ is in > >>any way possible. > >This is what I do in

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 5/11/2015 11:03 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 03:15:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: This scarcely counts as a derivation of any useful physics at all, much less of quantum mechanics that relates to observational results. It is a derivation of quantum mechanics, from

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 11/4/2015 5:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/11/2015 11:03 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 03:15:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: This scarcely counts as a derivation of any useful physics at all, much less of quantum mechanics that relates to observational results.

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:17:23PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/11/2015 11:03 am, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 03:15:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>This scarcely counts as a derivation of any useful physics at all, > >>much less of quantum mechanics that relates

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> If sentence X says "2+2=5" then sentence X expresses a numerical >> relationship, that association may or may not belong to the category "true" >> but it's certainly a relationship. The problem isn't that true

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 04 Nov 2015, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/11/2015 4:49 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/3/2015 4:49 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/11/2015 8:50 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: The choice of the bases

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 03 Nov 2015, at 18:33, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/3/2015 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: Which is just your idiosyncratic way of saying that we have to

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: Which is just your idiosyncratic way of saying that we have to apply a projection operator. No, we have to recover the "projection operator" from the

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 02 Nov 2015, at 18:36, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only way to segregate the​ numerical​ relationships that express a truth from the many that don't is to make a

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 23:28, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​ >> ​ ​From examples in the

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 3/11/2015 8:50 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: The choice of the bases is what Zurek have explained. That extends Everett. I think you should study Zurek at little more closely. He did not actually explain

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 11/3/2015 4:49 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/11/2015 8:50 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: The choice of the bases is what Zurek have explained. That extends Everett. I think you should study Zurek at

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 11/3/2015 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: Which is just your idiosyncratic way of saying that we have to apply a projection operator. No, we have to

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 03 Nov 2015, at 13:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/11/2015 8:50 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: The choice of the bases is what Zurek have explained. That extends Everett. I think you should study Zurek

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 4/11/2015 11:33 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:55:56AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/11/2015 4:49 am, Brent Meeker wrote: I think that would have been better expressed if you had noted that the robust basis is not necessarily the position basis. As Schlosshauer

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:55:56AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 4/11/2015 4:49 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > >I think that would have been better expressed if you had noted > >that the robust basis is not necessarily the position basis. As > >Schlosshauer notes, for atomic size things it is often

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 4/11/2015 4:49 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/3/2015 4:49 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/11/2015 8:50 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: The choice of the bases is what Zurek have explained. That extends

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 4/11/2015 1:26 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:59:41AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: I disagree. I do not think the quantum mechanics /ab initio/ is in any way possible. This is what I do in appendix D of my book. It then behooves you to point out where exactly that is

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:59:41AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > I disagree. I do not think the quantum mechanics /ab initio/ is in > any way possible. This is what I do in appendix D of my book. It then behooves you to point out where exactly that is wrong. > Physics is done with respect

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 11/3/2015 8:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/11/2015 1:26 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:59:41AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: I disagree. I do not think the quantum mechanics /ab initio/ is in any way possible. This is what I do in appendix D of my book. It then

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 02 Nov 2015, at 02:12, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​The computations are emulated in virtue of the truth of number relationship, ​2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only way to segregate the​

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2015, at 01:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/10/2015 3:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only way to >> segregate the >> ​ >> numerical >> ​ >> relationships that express a truth from the many that don't is to make a >> calculation, and the only way

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: Which is just your idiosyncratic way of saying that we have to apply a projection operator. No, we have to recover the "projection operator" from the computationalist quantization. It is a math problem.

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 30 Oct 2015, at 01:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/10/2015 3:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only clarification I would make is that (with computationalism) the system is formal, but the

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 30 Oct 2015, at 17:56, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: I'll try again... fooling myself again in believing you're honest here ​Oh dear, I feared that "bye" in your last post didn't mean much. ​ ​> ​So let's pretend our "AI" is in

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 31 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/30/2015 11:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-30 19:20 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : On 10/30/2015 9:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-30 17:13 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-10-30

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The computations are emulated in virtue of the truth of number > relationship, ​2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only way to segregate the ​ numerical ​ relationships that express a truth from the

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 2/11/2015 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2015, at 01:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/10/2015 3:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only clarification I would make is that (with

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/30/2015 11:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-30 19:20 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker >: On 10/30/2015 9:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-30 17:13 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-30 17:01 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > ​>>​ >>> And I repeat, ​If the microprocessor made of matter that obeys the laws >>> of physics can't sense **any** information in the AI program

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-30 17:13 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-10-30 17:01 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux >> wrote: >> >> ​>>​ And I repeat, ​If the microprocessor made of matter that obeys

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​ >> ​>>​ >> The AI's physical memory banks are in that external world and the >> information in it is sure as hell fed into it, as are the results of >> calculations made by the physical microprocessors that are also

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​>>​ >> And I repeat, ​If the microprocessor made of matter that obeys the laws >> of physics can't sense **any** information in the AI program then the AI >> program is not running, it's​ not intelligent it's just a

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: I'll try again... fooling myself again in believing you're honest here > ​Oh dear, I feared that "bye" in your last post didn't mean much. ​ > ​> ​ > So let's pretend our "AI" is in fact a Nintendo Entertainment System >

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/30/2015 9:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-30 17:13 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux >: 2015-10-30 17:01 GMT+01:00 John Clark >: On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:55 AM,

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-30 19:20 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : > > > On 10/30/2015 9:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-10-30 17:13 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : > >> >> >> 2015-10-30 17:01 GMT+01:00 John Clark < >> johnkcl...@gmail.com>: >> >>>

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​>> ​ >> Matter always matters. >> > > ​> ​ > I repeat if there is *absolutely no sensors writing **any** information in > a *memory location* readable by the AI program > And I repeat, ​If the microprocessor made of

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-29 16:33 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> Matter always matters. >>> >> >> ​> ​ >> I repeat if there is *absolutely no sensors writing **any** information >> in a *memory location*

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​> ​ > You've challenged Bruno many times to perform a difficult computation > using his Platonic computer. > ​Forget difficult, I've challenged Bruno to perform ANY computation with ANY Platonic computer ​ he can

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 19:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/26/2015 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-27 7:44 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : On 10/26/2015 3:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:44:28AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/26/2015 2:43 AM,

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 23:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sent from my iPhone On 28 Oct 2015, at 4:49 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/26/2015 11:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 29 Oct 2015, at 04:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/28/2015 2:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:28 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 02:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 12:05 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 10:52 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Monday, October 26, 2015, Bruce Kellett

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 23:28, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​ >> ​ ​From examples in the

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 23:04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​>> ​​From examples in the physical world. You can give as many botanical

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only clarification I would make is that (with computationalism) the system is formal, but the observer (individual in your terminology) and environment (universe with its physics in your

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/28/2015 11:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 29 Oct 2015, at 2:12 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/28/2015 2:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:28 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 Oct 2015, at 19:43, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-27 19:16 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : On 10/26/2015 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-27 7:44 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : On 10/26/2015 3:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26,

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 28 Oct 2015, at 10:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:28 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM,

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 30/10/2015 3:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only clarification I would make is that (with computationalism) the system is formal, but the observer (individual in your terminology) and environment

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 29/10/2015 4:25 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Oct 2015, at 05:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles') effectively undermines computationalism, or any argument that arithmetic is prior to physics. See:

Re: Carroll's Paradox

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 2:12 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >> On 10/28/2015 2:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:28 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> >>> On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26 Oct 2015, at 07:32, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 October 2015 at 17:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26 Oct 2015, at 07:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/25/2015 11:32 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 October 2015 at 17:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: I

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/28/2015 2:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:28 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon,

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26 Oct 2015, at 05:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles') effectively undermines computationalism, or any argument that arithmetic is prior to physics. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles In order

Re: Carroll's Paradox

> On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:28 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >> On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Carroll's Paradox

> On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:39 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >> On 10/27/2015 3:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 28 Oct 2015, at 4:49 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> >>> On 10/26/2015 11:00 PM, Stathis

Re: Carroll's Paradox

From: Bruce Kellett Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:54 AM [] But to make sense of this mathematically you have to get rid of the unwanted correlations. Most do this by fiat -- the worlds are orthogonal FAPP. But that is not principled either. Mathematically, we take a partial trace.

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/26/2015 4:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On 27/10/2015 8:16 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/26/2015 2:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, 27 October 2015, John Clark > wrote: Russell Standish wrote: Modus ponens is only a formal manipulation of symbols, with no semantic content. ​ I

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/26/2015 4:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Monday, October 26, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On 27/10/2015 8:16 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Tuesday, 27 October 2015, John Clark

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27/10/2015 5:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/10/2015 4:50 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 October 2015 at 14:22, Bruce Kellett

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 October 2015 at 17:32, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/26/2015 2:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 27 October 2015, John Clark < > johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Russell Standish wrote: >> >> >>> Modus ponens is only a

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 27/10/2015 3:12 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/10/2015 12:27 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/26/2015 6:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 27/10/2015 12:05 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/10/2015 10:52 am, Jason

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/26/2015 3:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:44:28AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/26/2015 2:43 AM, Russell Standish wrote: Assuming computationalism, our everyday experience _is_ internal to the system. That doesn't make it any less meaningful. I think

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-27 7:44 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : > > > On 10/26/2015 3:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:44:28AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> On 10/26/2015 2:43 AM, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> Assuming computationalism, our everyday experience

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/26/2015 6:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 12:05 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/10/2015 10:52 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Monday, October 26, 2015, Bruce

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 27/10/2015 4:50 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 27 October 2015 at 14:22, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/10/2015 1:13 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 27 Oct 2015, at

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-27 17:29 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> If it is *FULLY* >>> disconnected from the physical world >>> ​ then what sort of computer is the AI running on, and what is >>>

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-27 15:39 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> So what do you think would happen if an AI, or uploaded mind were >> uploaded into a virtual reality that was fully disconnected from the >>

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> If it is *FULLY* >> disconnected from the physical world >> ​ then what sort of computer is the AI running on, and what is generating >> the virtual reality environment?​ >> > > ​> ​ > If no sensor of the

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/26/2015 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-27 7:44 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker >: On 10/26/2015 3:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:44:28AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/27/2015 12:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/26/2015 4:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Monday, October 26, 2015, Bruce Kellett

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/27/2015 12:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 October 2015 at 17:32, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/26/2015 2:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, 27 October 2015, John Clark

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-10-27 19:16 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : > > > On 10/26/2015 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-10-27 7:44 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : > >> >> >> On 10/26/2015 3:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:44:28AM -0700,

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/26/2015 11:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/10/2015 4:50 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 October 2015 at 14:22, Bruce Kellett

Re: Carroll's Paradox

> On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: > >>> ​>> ​​From examples in the physical world. You can give as many botanical >>> definitions of the word "tree" as you want

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/27/2015 3:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:30 AM, John Clark > wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: ​ >> ​

Re: Carroll's Paradox

Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Oct 2015, at 4:49 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >> On 10/26/2015 11:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >>> On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: On 27/10/2015 4:50 pm, Stathis

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/27/2015 3:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sent from my iPhone On 28 Oct 2015, at 4:49 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/26/2015 11:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 10/27/2015 11:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-27 19:16 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker >: On 10/26/2015 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-27 7:44 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > ​>> ​ >> ​From examples in the physical world. You can give as many botanical >> definitions of the word "tree" as you want but it will just be a word >> defined by other words that are themselves defined by yet

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > So what do you think would happen if an AI, or uploaded mind were uploaded > into a virtual reality that was fully disconnected from the physical world? > Would that mind no longer be conscious? > ​If it is *FULLY*

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles') > effectively undermines computationalism, or any argument that > arithmetic is prior to physics. > > See:

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:54:03PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/10/2015 5:30 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:08:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: >

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26/10/2015 8:43 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:54:03PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/10/2015 5:30 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:08:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26 October 2015 at 17:43, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/25/2015 11:32 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 26 October 2015 at 17:08, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles') effectively undermines computationalism, or any argument that arithmetic is prior to physics. See:

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26 October 2015 at 17:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles') >>> effectively undermines

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26/10/2015 5:32 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 October 2015 at 17:08, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26/10/2015 5:30 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:08:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:40:45PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Carroll's Paradox (or 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles')

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 26 October 2015 at 17:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/10/2015 5:32 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 26 October 2015 at 17:08, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 26/10/2015 5:01 pm, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at

  1   2   >