Peter Jones writes:
> > Is it possible that we are currently actors in a single, deterministic,
> > non-branching
> > computer program, with the illusion of free will and if-then contingency in
> > general
> > being due to the fact that we don't know the details of how the program
> > will pl
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
> > What about an inputless computer program, running deterministically like a
> > recording.
> > Would that count as a program at all,
>
> It would be a trivial case.
Trivial does not mean false.
> > and could it be a conscious program, given that
> > compu
Hi, Bruno
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
Bruno wrote:
Hi John,
Le 18-août-06, à 03:03, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Why has 6 'divisors'? because my math teacher
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
> > > > > But the important point is that the temporal sequence does not itself
> > > > > make a difference
> > > > > to subjective experience.
> > > >
> > > > We don't actually know that it is possible that
> > > > there might be some flicker e
Le 18-août-06, à 22:59, complexitystudies a écrit :
>>
>
> As 1Z has so nicely put, existence implies causal interaction.
> Numbers cannot causally interact, therefore they do not exist,
> save as thoughts in our brains.
Don(t say this to a logician. there are as many notion of "causality"
tha
Le 18-août-06, à 19:01, 1Z a écrit :
> That is quite different from conjuring up existential conclusions
> from non-existential premises.
I believe there exist numbers, prime numbers, even numbers, etc. and in
relative universal numbers, ... (with Church Thesis "universal" need
not to be acco
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Günther writes:
>
> > Well, let's see: in Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty fell off a
> > wall. This is true, isn't it? It is certainly true independent
> > of our minds. Indeed, it is true in such a way that even when
> > all humans have died, this universe will ha
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Is it possible that we are currently actors in a single, deterministic,
> non-branching
> computer program, with the illusion of free will and if-then contingency in
> general
> being due to the fact that we don't know the details of how the program will
> play
>
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
>
> > > I've never really understood why computationalists insist that a system
> > > must be able to handle counterfactuals in order for consciousness to
> > > occur,
> >
> > I've explained that several times: computer programmes con
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 18-août-06, à 17:02, 1Z a écrit :
>
> > It is for Pythagorenas and Platonists to explain what they mean by
> > "exist".
> >
> > However, if you are going to claim that we are actually *in* Platonia,
> > (mathematical monism) there must be some equivalence between the
> >
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 18-août-06, à 17:38, 1Z a écrit :
>
> > That is an explanation of mind-independence, not of existence.
> > The anti-Platonist (e.g. the formalist) can claim that
> > the truth of mathematical statments is mind-independent,
> > but their existence isn't.
>
>
> "Their" ex
Le 18-août-06, à 17:38, 1Z a écrit :
> That is an explanation of mind-independence, not of existence.
> The anti-Platonist (e.g. the formalist) can claim that
> the truth of mathematical statments is mind-independent,
> but their existence isn't.
"Their" existence ? Mathematical statements ne
Le 18-août-06, à 17:02, 1Z a écrit :
> It is for Pythagorenas and Platonists to explain what they mean by
> "exist".
>
> However, if you are going to claim that we are actually *in* Platonia,
> (mathematical monism) there must be some equivalence between the
> existence we
> have and the existen
Le 19-août-06, à 08:48, Brent Meeker wrote quoting Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> What more could we possibly ask of a theorem other than that it be
>> true relative to some
>> axioms? That a theorem should describe some aspect of the real world,
>> or that it should
>> be discovered by some mathem
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
> >>But the fact that a theorem is true relative to some axioms doesn't make it
> >>true
> >>or existent. Some mathematicians I know regard it as a game. Is true that
> >>a
> >>bishop can only move diagonally? It is relative to chess. Does chess
> >>exis
15 matches
Mail list logo
