math at a NY
univ.).
Your 3rd par, however, ("For Tom and Georges:")
sounds to me like musical noise and I prefer Beethoven. I needed some 20-30
years of intensive study to get it right.
Thanks anyway.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL P
Le 31-juil.-06, à 23:32, John M a écrit :
> 1Z:
> I liked your examples, would have liked better if you do not base the
> entire
> list on "matter to exist". It may not.
>
> I have a notion - cannot put my finger on an adequate formulation of
> it into
> words - that mathematics cannot be comp
have some objections to that.
Somebody tell me if this is a wrong idea. I will not fight it. (Not my
table).
John M
- Original Message -
From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: This is not the road
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 24-juil.-06, à 02:26, 1Z a écrit :
> > OTOH, materialism explains how qualia can be unrelated to computation.
> Could you say how (without invoking words like "real")?
If nothing exists except mathematical structures, qualia can only
be identical to mathematical struc
Le 24-juil.-06, à 02:26, 1Z a écrit :
> OTOH, materialism explains how qualia can be unrelated to computation.
Could you say how (without invoking words like "real")?
bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message bec
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 23-juil.-06, à 02:43, 1Z a écrit :
>
> > There is no reason to think numbers can describe qualia at
> > all, so the question of the "best" description hardly arises.
>
> That was my point. But then I can show this is a necessary consequence
> of comp.
> Materialist who
Le 23-juil.-06, à 02:43, 1Z a écrit :
> There is no reason to think numbers can describe qualia at
> all, so the question of the "best" description hardly arises.
That was my point. But then I can show this is a necessary consequence
of comp.
Materialist who are using comp as a pretext for no
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You asked me more difficult problems in the past, John.
> *assuming comp*, there is an easy answer. Go to Numberplatonia, use
> Goedel's technic to write a little program with the instruction "help
> yourself". Pray each day your little program develop itself convenably,
Thanks, Bruno, for your helping effort.
It did not do too much for me because it started out
with 'assuming comp' which means: we need nothing more
than (number) trivialities and (as you wrote):
> Numbers protects the free mind against a *vast*
> class of reductionism<
What I feel is the comp
Le 21-juil.-06, à 22:52, John M a écrit :
> Could we talk 'topics' without going into trivialities what every child
> knows after the first visit to the grocery store?
But the cute thing (in my perhaps naive lobianity) here is that you
don't need more than the trivialities every child knows a
Dear Bruno, please, don't even read this:
(This is not a personal attack on you or YOUR theory, it is a common belief
and I question its usability - not by opposing, just curious to find a way
to accept it and experience the happiness of the mathematicians).
It is a retardating barrier for me
11 matches
Mail list logo
