Re: Tim Maudlin
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean. Hi Bruno, Sigma_1 logic is more powerful than Boolean algebras, but this does not allow Sigma_N logics to escape from the necessity of satisfiability. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. Dear Bruno, Why are you such a literalist? Don't use technical terms, in that case. Don't be such a hidebound stiff! Are the strings that make up the UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra? The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean. The UD is not an infinite number of Turing machine algorithms dovetailed together? There is no relation between a Turing Machine and a Boolean Algebra? I suspect that you know the relation but are not willing to discuss it! I think that you are evading my question! Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 27 Feb 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. Dear Bruno, Why are you such a literalist? Don't use technical terms, in that case. Are the strings that make up the UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra? The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean. Bruno But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1 sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra. I was only using the word 'subset' to indicate the components of the UD, not a literal subset. Since the UD is not a set, it obviously cannot have subsets, so you should be able to deduce that I am not asking a question that implies otherwise. Let us try again. Are the components of the UD equivalent to Boolean algebras? Yes or No. If not, what relation do they have with boolean algebras? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. Dear Bruno, Why are you such a literalist?Are the strings that make up the UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra? But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1 sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra. I was only using the word 'subset' to indicate the components of the UD, not a literal subset. Since the UD is not a set, it obviously cannot have subsets, so you should be able to deduce that I am not asking a question that implies otherwise. Let us try again. Are the components of the UD equivalent to Boolean algebras? Yes or No. If not, what relation do they have with boolean algebras? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 26 Feb 2013, at 19:57, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/26/2013 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the existence of Time as Fundamental? In his paper on comp, he seems to favor materialism against comp, so this is not so astonishing. Likewise he depart from the MWI. Hi Bruno, Yes, I agree, he does seem to assume some form of physicalism. Could subsets of your UD be the Stone dual of a line, as Maudlin defines them? Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1 sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra. Bruno Please elaborate. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 2/26/2013 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the existence of Time as Fundamental? In his paper on comp, he seems to favor materialism against comp, so this is not so astonishing. Likewise he depart from the MWI. Hi Bruno, Yes, I agree, he does seem to assume some form of physicalism. Could subsets of your UD be the Stone dual of a line, as Maudlin defines them? Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? Please elaborate. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the existence of Time as Fundamental? In his paper on comp, he seems to favor materialism against comp, so this is not son astonishing. Likewise he depart from the MWI. Could subsets of your UD be the Stone dual of a line, as Maudlin defines them? Please elaborate. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
