Re: What day is it?

On 25 Oct 2015, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 25/10/2015 6:12 pm, Pierz wrote: It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori existence of arithmetic. Maybe it is because the self-consistency of physics is what makes arithmetic possible. That is too much

Re: What day is it?

On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:49, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Physics is what is observable. The "computable physical certainty" is described by the intensional variant of Gödel's self- referential prdicate, []p, that is

Re: What day is it?

On 26/10/2015 4:45 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/25/2015 10:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote: In both those cases you do have evidence: your knowledge about how matter organizes

Re: What day is it?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/25/2015 10:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/25/2015 10:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On 26/10/2015 3:48 pm,

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 10:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/25/2015 10:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Brent Meeker

Re: What day is it?

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:08:04 AM UTC+1, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/25/2015 10:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Brent Meeker > > wrote:

Re: What day is it?

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ​> ​ > Physics is what is observable. The "computable physical certainty" is > described by the intensional variant of Gödel's self-referential prdicate, > []p, that is mainly []p & <>t, (with or without & p) >

Re: What day is it?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>> ​ >> In this context, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. >> > > ​> ​ > I disagree. > ​There is no evidence for or against the existence of a teapot in orbit around Uranus, ​so should I call myself a teapot

Re: What day is it?

It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori existence of arithmetic. Though admittedly that is a different point to whether or not physics is "emulated" in arithmetic. On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 4:32:47 PM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at

Re: What day is it?

On 25/10/2015 6:12 pm, Pierz wrote: It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori existence of arithmetic. Maybe it is because the self-consistency of physics is what makes arithmetic possible. Though admittedly that is a different point to whether or not physics

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 5:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/25/2015 8:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is physical existence. We can understand imaginary things, but we have no direct evidence for their existence -- certainly not for their physical existence. Bruce On 26/10/2015 2:44 pm, Jason Resch wrote: There it is again.

Re: What day is it?

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/25/2015 8:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 25/10/2015 6:12 pm, Pierz wrote: >> >>> It's hard to see how physics can

Re: What day is it?

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is physical > existence. We can understand imaginary things, but we have no direct > evidence for their existence -- certainly not for their physical

Re: What day is it?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/10/2015 3:48 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is >>

Re: What day is it?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/25/2015 10:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/25/2015 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 25,

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is physical existence. We can understand imaginary things,

Re: What day is it?

There it is again. Where is your evidence? Or are you led by your faith? On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/25/2015 5:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >>

Re: What day is it?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/25/2015 10:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 26/10/2015 3:48 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> The only sort of existence

Re: What day is it?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/25/2015 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is >>

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 10:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/25/2015 10:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/10/2015 3:48 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM,

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 10:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/10/2015 3:48 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is physical

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 10:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/25/2015 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

On 26/10/2015 3:48 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The only sort of existence for which we have concrete evidence is physical existence. We can understand imaginary things, but

Re: What day is it?

On 24 Oct 2015, at 07:32, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In arithmetic all emulation of programs exists, ​That is totally unimportant, ​It's not worth arguing about because it wouldn't change anything even if it were true. But

Re: What day is it?

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​>​ > no-one has yet emulated any physics in arithmetic. ​True, but computers emulate arithmetic in physics every day, in fact even simple calculators do that. John K Clark ​ -- You received this message

Re: What day is it?

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Pierz wrote: ​> ​ > It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori > existence of arithmetic. > ​Two points:​ 1) It's not just hard it's impossible to see how arithmetic can PROVE the self- consistency of physics

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 8:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 25/10/2015 6:12 pm, Pierz wrote: It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori

Re: What day is it?

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 25/10/2015 6:12 pm, Pierz wrote: > >> It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori >> existence of arithmetic. >> > > Maybe it is because the self-consistency of physics is what

Re: What day is it?

On 10/25/2015 12:12 AM, Pierz wrote: It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori existence of arithmetic. What do you mean by "physics" and what do you mean by "existence". Consistency is a relation of propositions and inference rules. To say physics is

Re: What day is it?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > In arithmetic all emulation of programs exists, > ​That is totally unimportant, ​It's not worth arguing about because it wouldn't change anything even if it were true. But I'll tell you the REALLY important question, is

Re: What day is it?

On 19 Oct 2015, at 04:29, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​A simulation is never 100% accurate, ​> ​This not correct. In Virtue of the digitalness, a simulation can be 100% accurate, ​Only if the numbers a computer uses

Re: What day is it?

On 19 Oct 2015, at 03:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 17/10/2015 3:59 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Oct 2015, at 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: It is the failure to clearly distinguish between these different senses of the word 'exists' that cause most of your confusion. The mathematical

Re: What day is it?

On 18 Oct 2015, at 22:37, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/18/2015 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If arithmetic is false, Church-Turing thesis makes no more sense. ?? It will make sense as an axiom in

Re: What day is it?

On 19 Oct 2015, at 05:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/10/2015 8:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Oct 2015, at 04:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Two different meanings of

Re: What day is it?

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> A simulation is never 100% accurate, >> > > ​> ​ > This not correct. In Virtue of the digitalness, a simulation can be 100% > accurate, > ​Only if the numbers a computer uses are actual numbers not simulated

Re: What day is it?

On 18/10/2015 8:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Oct 2015, at 04:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Two different meanings of the word 'exist'. Physical existence relates to

Re: What day is it?

On 10/18/2015 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If arithmetic is false, Church-Turing thesis makes no more sense. ?? It will make sense as an axiom in a certain branch of mathematics. Then it is no

Re: What day is it?

On 17/10/2015 3:59 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Oct 2015, at 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: It is the failure to clearly distinguish between these different senses of the word 'exists' that cause most of your confusion. The mathematical theorem is that when a machine looks inward, in the

Re: What day is it?

On 17 Oct 2015, at 21:53, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>​>>​ ​Of the 10^500 string theory physics, maybe 1 in a million or fewer are rich enough to support life. ​​>> ​If so then there are 10^494 universes ​rich enough to

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If arithmetic is false, Church-Turing thesis makes no more sense. ?? It will make sense as an axiom in a certain branch of mathematics. Then it is no more the classical Church's thesis. It will

Re: What day is it?

On 16 Oct 2015, at 04:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Two different meanings of the word 'exist'. Physical existence relates to physical objects; mathematical 'existence'

Re: What day is it?

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > Of the 10^500 string theory physics, maybe 1 in a million or fewer are > rich enough to support life. > ​If so then there are 10^494 universes ​ rich enough to support life ​, and there is a 100% probability that

Re: What day is it?

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:03 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Of the 10^500 string theory physics, maybe 1 in a million or fewer are >> rich enough to support life. >> > > ​If so then there are

Re: What day is it?

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> ​ >>> Of the 10^500 string theory physics, maybe 1 in a million or fewer are >>> rich enough to support life. >>> >> >> ​ >> ​>> ​ >> If so then there are 10^494 universes ​ >> rich enough to support life

Re: What day is it?

On 16 Oct 2015, at 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: It is the failure to clearly distinguish between these different senses of the word 'exists' that cause most of your confusion. The mathematical theorem is that when a machine looks inward, in the sense made precise by Gödel, Kleene and

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > ​>> ​ >> does Susskind say there is less than a >> ​ ​ >> 100% chance that the universe I live in would be a universe amenable to >> life >> ​? >> > > ​> ​ > He lays out a convincing case that the probability that any

Re: What day is it?

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:36 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> ​>> ​ >>> does Susskind say there is less than a >>> ​ ​ >>> 100% chance that the universe I live in would be a universe amenable to >>>

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 19:54, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Not at all, I only assume a brain needs an external world to be aware of. Either what you add to the brain is Turing emulable, and that means you are just lmowering the substittution level, and

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:27, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Brent Meeker

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 6:40 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: You talk like if I have claim knowing some truth. I do not. You are doing philosophy of comp-theology.

Re: What day is it?

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:21, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > On

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 6:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Computationalism has an ontology on which everyone agree. Those who claim to disagree usually add philosophical commitment which is not used in the

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 6:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Computationalism has an ontology on which everyone agree. Those who claim to disagree usually add philosophical commitment which is not used in the

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Computationalism has an ontology on which everyone agree. Those who claim to disagree usually add philosophical commitment which is not used in the reasoning. An ontology *is* a philosophical

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 6:40 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: You talk like if I have claim knowing some truth. I do not. You are doing philosophy of comp-theology. That belongs to the field of philosophy of science,

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 22:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/14/2015 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Oct 2015, at 06:59, Brent Meeker wrote: Yes. A brain in a vat with no connections would not be able to sustain consciousness. Aaaahh... OK, but then you assume indeed, like Bruce Kellet

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 03:59, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:50, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: You talk like if I have claim knowing some truth. I do not. You are doing philosophy of comp-theology. That belongs to the field of philosophy of science, which is not my expertise. You cannot use

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 15/10/2015 12:07 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 15/10/2015 12:07 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at

Re: What day is it?

On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Two different meanings of the word 'exist'. Physical existence relates to physical objects; mathematical 'existence' relates to

Re: What day is it?

On 16/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 16/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > Two different meanings of the word 'exist'.

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> There is no evidence physical objects change. >> > > ​Be honest now, do you really believe that remark deserves a response?​ >

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 15/10/2015 12:07 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 14/10/2015 4:45 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> Cochlear implants and

Re: What day is it?

On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: What evidence do you need to say that something does not exist? Absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> What evidence do you need to say that something does not exist? Absence

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 6:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If arithmetic is false, Church-Turing thesis makes no more sense. ?? It will make sense as an axiom in a certain branch of mathematics. Then it is no more the classical Church's thesis. It will be something like intuitionist Church's thesis.

Re: What day is it?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > There is no evidence physical objects change. > ​Be honest now, do you really believe that remark deserves a response?​ ​> ​ > Most of reality we cannot observe. I'm comfortable with there being many > things

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Not at all, I only assume a brain needs an external world to be aware of. Either what you add to the brain is Turing emulable, and that means you are just lmowering the substittution level, and the reasoning I presented still follows (as he used

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 06:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 8:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Brent Meeker

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 08:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/10/2015 4:45 pm, Jason Resch wrote: Cochlear implants and artificial retinas give evidence toward multiple realizability, and therefore, against mind- brain identity theory. They show that it is functional equivalence,

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Brent Meeker

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 07:45, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 8:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch

Re: What day is it?

On 14/10/2015 4:45 pm, Jason Resch wrote: Cochlear implants and artificial retinas give evidence toward multiple realizability, and therefore, against mind-brain identity theory. They show that it is functional equivalence, rather than material/compositional equivalence that matters. Since

Re: What day is it?

On 10/13/2015 10:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/13/2015 8:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 00:41, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 3:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/10/2015 11:43 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-13 14:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : ... Who said matter was the end point? You... why do you insist on matter, if

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 08:26, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 10:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 8:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:50, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 PM, Jason Resch

Re: What day is it?

On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:36, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​Well look into Bruno's theory if you want some possible answers. ​Answers are a dime a dozen, correct answers are not. And Bruno doesn't even know what questions

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 00:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/10/2015 3:11 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2015, at 12:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/10/2015 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2015, at 07:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Has computationalism predicted spin? Special relativity?

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 00:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 3:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 October 2015 at 21:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/10/2015 7:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 04:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 3:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 14 October 2015 at 09:46, Brent Meeker

Re: What day is it?

On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 1:57 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: The double-slit experiment is evidence of platonic computation being

Re: What day is it?

On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:34, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2015, at 07:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Has computationalism predicted spin? Special relativity? Quantum field theory? General relativity? Computationalism is used implicitly in the theory

Re: What day is it?

On 10/14/2015 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Oct 2015, at 06:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 8:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch

Re: What day is it?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Answers are a dime a dozen, correct answers are not. And Bruno doesn't >> even know what questions to ask, like, "what does the pronoun "you" refer >> to, or what does "free will" even mean, or does the word "God" mean

Re: What day is it?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > John, > You are just doing propaganda for Aristotle theological primary matter > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Computationalism has an ontology on which everyone agree. Those who claim to disagree usually add philosophical commitment which is not used in the reasoning. An ontology *is* a philosophical commitment, even if 'everyone' agrees on it. If the

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 2:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: You talk like if I have claim knowing some truth. I do not. You are doing philosophy of comp-theology. That belongs to the field of philosophy of science, which is not my expertise. You cannot use philosophy for making people doubting a logical

Re: What day is it?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 14/10/2015 4:45 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > Cochlear implants and artificial retinas give evidence toward multiple > realizability, and therefore, against mind-brain identity theory. They show > that it is

Re: What day is it?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/13/2015 10:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/13/2015 8:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015

Re: What day is it?

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > Here are the alternatives to computationalism, and their problems: > *Interactionism (Dualism):* Postulates a non-physical soul which > ​ [...] > ​Which is contradicted by experiment. ​ ​In every observation a

Re: What day is it?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:50, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015

Re: What day is it?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Oct 2015, at 07:45, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/13/2015 8:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015

Re: What day is it?

On 10/14/2015 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: Actually, Robinson Arithmetic is consistent with ultrafinitism. So, logically, ultrafinitism is not a threat for comp at the

Re: What day is it?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> Answers are a dime a dozen, correct answers are not. And Bruno doesn't >>> even know what questions to ask, like, "what does the pronoun

  1   2   3   4   5   >