-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Brent Meeker
Skickat: den 10 juli 2006 23:04
Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?
I'd say the decision to use classical logic is an
assumption that
Le 09-juil.-06, à 17:20, James N Rose a écrit :
Bruno, I reviewed the archive and found no reply.
I will repeat it again, hoping for your thoughts:
from July 2, 2006 (lightly amended and then addended)
Bruno,
I have found myself in this lifetime to be a staunch
OP-ponent and
Le 10-juil.-06, à 16:03, 1Z a écrit :
It is a modest metaphysical posit which can be used to explain
a variety of observed phenomena, ranging from Time and Change
to the observed absence of Harry Potter universes.
How could a substantial world be' a modest metaphysical posit?
First nobody
Bruno Marchal a écrit (to Jamie N Rose):
Concerning your use of the word proposition, I don't understand
exactly what you mean by the words exists accessible perfectly
accessible, The whole sentence is rather hard to follow.
Godel used this:
From A - B and A - ~B, infer ~A.
Godel
[Working my way slowly up the list of many excellent posts from the past few
days, excuse me if someone else has already answered this...]
Lee Corbin writes (quoting SP):
If [a] species believed that 2+2=5, or that their kidneys were the organs
of respiration,
they would be wrong. But
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 10-juil.-06, à 16:03, 1Z a écrit :
It is a modest metaphysical posit which can be used to explain
a variety of observed phenomena, ranging from Time and Change
to the observed absence of Harry Potter universes.
How could a substantial world be' a modest
Le 10-juil.-06, à 21:55, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Tom, hi George,
I recall the 4 diag problems, and the three solutions already
provided.
Below, I give the solution of the fourth, and new exercises. Read this
with paper and pencil, or don't read it. If you
1Z wrote:
The clue is our failure ot observe HP universes,
as predicted by Platonic theories.
It a theory predicts somethig which is not observed,
it is falsified.
But this is a bit of a strawman, because most on this list who subscribe to
the view that every possible world or observer-moment
Le 11-juil.-06, à 16:24, 1Z a écrit :
How could a substantial world be' a modest metaphysical posit?
By explaining a lot from on e premiss.
I could agree that it eases the mind. Like God's notion. But it
explains nothing, like when God is used as an (empty) explanation.
Today, physician
In three different posts, Brent Meeker wrote :
I'm not sure that logic in the formal sense can be right or wrong;
it's a set of conventions about
language and inference. About the only standard I've seen by which a
logic or mathematical system
could be called wrong is it if it is
This discussion is very interesting to me. Not addressing anyone in
particular, I only have time to make a quick comment, and hope that I
can get time for later:
In my reading about Plato, it seems that Plato didn't have the answers
either. It might be helpful to remember that Plato not only
Jesse Mazer wrote:
1Z wrote:
The clue is our failure ot observe HP universes,
as predicted by Platonic theories.
It a theory predicts somethig which is not observed,
it is falsified.
But this is a bit of a strawman, because most on this list who subscribe to
the view that every
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 11-juil.-06, à 16:24, 1Z a écrit :
How could a substantial world be' a modest metaphysical posit?
By explaining a lot from on e premiss.
I could agree that it eases the mind. Like God's notion. But it
explains nothing, like when God is used as an (empty)
IZ wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
1Z wrote:
The clue is our failure ot observe HP universes,
as predicted by Platonic theories.
It a theory predicts somethig which is not observed,
it is falsified.
But this is a bit of a strawman, because most on this list who subscribe
to
Hi,
Le Mardi 11 Juillet 2006 21:52, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 11-juil.-06, à 16:24, 1Z a écrit :
Now if you assume primary matter, no doubt you need to reject comp,
giving that what I show is that you cannot have both.
Brains are material. Computers are material.
I think you
Stathis asked: (last lines)
"What more to it than that is there?
Sure, the details are infinitely variable, but basically living things are
around because they managed to stay around and propagate
themselves"
That would call for my 'opinion in my
narrative' about mutation and natural
Jesse Mazer wrote:
IZ wrote:
And mathematical MWI *would* be in the same happy position *if*
it could find a justification for MWI or classical measure.
However, in the absence of a satifactory theory of measure,
no-once can say that the posit of matter, of material existence
is
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
Le Mardi 11 Juillet 2006 21:52, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 11-juil.-06, à 16:24, 1Z a écrit :
Now if you assume primary matter, no doubt you need to reject comp,
giving that what I show is that you cannot have both.
Brains are material.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
[Working my way slowly up the list of many excellent posts from the past few
days, excuse me if
someone else has already answered this...]
Lee Corbin writes (quoting SP):
If [a] species believed that 2+2=5, or that their kidneys were the organs
of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 11-juil.-06, à 16:24, 1Z a écrit :
How could a substantial world be' a modest metaphysical posit?
By explaining a lot from on e premiss.
I could agree that it eases the mind. Like God's notion. But it
explains nothing, like when God is used as an (empty)
Jesse Mazer wrote:
IZ wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
IZ wrote:
And mathematical MWI *would* be in the same happy position *if*
it could find a justification for MWI or classical measure.
However, in the absence of a satifactory theory of measure,
no-once can say that
Brent Meeker wrote:
For the same reason they are far more Christians than Buddhist. And
none of your materialist even try to define matter. They take it for
granted, following mainly Aristotle. Almost all materialist react by
knocking a table when they want me to realize matter exists.
1Z wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
IZ wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
IZ wrote:
And mathematical MWI *would* be in the same happy position *if*
it could find a justification for MWI or classical measure.
However, in the absence of a satifactory theory of
I'm pleased to announce that my book Theory of Nothing is now for
sale through Booksurge and Amazon.com. If you go to the Booksurge
website (http://www.booksurge.com, http://www.booksurge.co.uk for
Brits and http://www.booksurge.com.au for us Aussies) you should get
the PDF softcopy bundled with
Stathis writes
There is an important difference between normative statements and descriptive
or empirical statements. Quoting from Wikipedia:
Descriptive (or constative) statements are falsifiable statements that
attempt to describe reality. Normative
statements, on the other hand,
Brent wrote
I would say that what makes a statement like we're the same person from
moment to moment true is
that it's an inference from, or a part of, a model of the world that is
true in the provisional
sense of scientific theories, i.e. it subsumes and predicts many empirically
John Mikes writes:
My mutation story is based on interactive responses to the ceaseless
changes of the rest of the world producing variations in offsprings. Some
more compatible than others.
The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate more abundantly so
they are the
27 matches
Mail list logo
