Bruno writes
> >>> You are asked to bet on your immediate and less immediate
> >>> future feeling. Precisely: we ask you to choose among the
> >>> following bets:
> >>>
> >>> Immediate:
> >>> A. I will see 0 on the wall.
> >>> B. I will see 1 on the wall.
> >>> C. I will see 0 on the wall and I wi
Dear Bruno,
The duality that I am considering is that proposed by Vaughan Pratt. It
is NOT a "substance" dualism. It is more a "process" dualism. Please see the
ratmech paper for an explanaition. It is found here:
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/pratt9
Le 08-juil.-05, à 00:59, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Bruno writes
Each Lee-i is offered 5$ each time his bet is confirmed, but
loses 5$ if he makes a wrong bet.
And yes, it would be possible to emphasize to each instance that
he is to attempt to maximize "his own instance's" earnings.
Quite corre
Le 07-juil.-05, à 23:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Bruno,
After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) and I?d like to
give you my reaction.
Thanks,
It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your assumptions.
Certainly. In a mathematical theory the theorems are always
Le 06-juil.-05, à 07:16, Russell Standish a écrit :
My reading of Bruno's work is that time
is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno
sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it).
Thinking again on why you keep saying this, I can imagine, giving the
inexhaust
Sorry. Just an attempt to see if I am still SPAM-BLOCKED from the list.
B.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Jesse Mazer wrote:
You might say that in the last example the states were "causally
connected", while in the first they were not. But why should that make any
difference, especially to a solipsist?
If one believes in "psychophysical laws" (to use Chalmers' term) relating
3rd-person patterns
7 matches
Mail list logo
