Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
> > You might say that a computer program has a two-way interaction with its
> > environment while a recording does not, but it is easy to imagine a
> > situation
> > where this can be perfectly reproduced by a recording. In run no. 1, you
> > start up
> > the
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:18:06PM -, 1Z wrote:
>
> That is an interesting point. However, a computation would have to be
> associated
> with all related branches in order to bring all the counterfactuals (or
> rather
> conditionals) into a single computation.
>
> (IOW treating branches ind
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:50:07AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > To be sure, this is not how I interpret Maudlin or the movie-graph
> > argument. I interpret it as NOT COMP or NOT PHYS SUP or NOT
> > SINGLE_UNIVERSE.
> >
> > In a multiple universe (eg Everett style MWI), all counterfactuals
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 22-août-06, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
>
>>OK, I suppose you could say "I'm intelligent" but not "I + my
>>environment are intelligent".
>>That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent
>>beings, and you are left
>>with the prob
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent meeker writes (quoting SP):
>
>
>>> Every physical system contains if-then statements. If the grooves on the
>>> record were different, then the sound coming out of the speakers would also
>>> be
>>> different.
>>
>> That's not a statement contained in the ph
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
(See below)
Teach! -
I have a difference against your mathematical definition! (ha ha)
I thought if '1' is a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Because comp makes it possible to postulate a simple theory where
> everything is communicable in a third person way. By making the first
> person primitive, you loose the ability to explain it (or to get some
> best possible third person explanation).
I'm still not sure I
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 22-août-06, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
> > OK, I suppose you could say "I'm intelligent" but not "I + my
> > environment are intelligent".
> > That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent
> > beings, and you are left
> > with the pr
Tom Caylor wrote:
> But then I think this search
> for invariance eventually brings us full circle to a self-referential
> paradox. Math is whatever we observe (to be true / to exist)
> independent of the observer.
The fact that an observer can observe something doesn't make it
dependent
on the
1Z wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> > I'd say a candidate for making AR false is the behavior of the prime
> > numbers, as has been discussed regarding your Riemann zeta function
> > TOE. As I suggested on that thread, it could be that the behavior of
> > the Riemann zeta function follows a collaps
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I can agree. No physicist posit matter in a fundamental theory.
All physical theories are theories of matter (mass/energy).
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List"
1Z wrote:
> That's the strangest thign I've read ina long
> time.
!!! That's odd, because this's the stringest thagn I've road ina ling
tome.
David
> Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> > I'd say a candidate for making AR false is the behavior of the prime
> > numbers, as has been discussed regarding y
Bruno:
I read you. I wanted to make a 'link' to
"heaven". Feynman had a humorous mind (as most intelligent people). He
also referred to the medieval silliness of realizing angels (in any
discussion).
Now back to numbers:
I always considered the "world" of (pure) math
[numbers?] a separa
Le 21-août-06, à 04:14, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> Bruno
>
> (BTW please delete any previous version of this posted in error.)
>
> I'm absolutely sincere in what I've said about approaching comp in 'as
> if' mode.
All right. I thought so. Let us try to see if and where we differ.
> But at
Le 22-août-06, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> OK, I suppose you could say "I'm intelligent" but not "I + my
> environment are intelligent".
> That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent
> beings, and you are left
> with the problem of how to decide whether a
Le 22-août-06, à 14:36, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> concerning process and programs, all boils down to the timeless/time
>> argument.
>>
>> I'm astonished that you accept time as is, I mean if time there is it
>> has been
>> created at the same time as our universe i
Brent meeker writes (quoting Peter Jones, Quentin Anciaux and SP):
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Le Dimanche 20 Août 2006 05:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> >>
> >>>Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
> >>>
> >What about an inputless computer program, running deterministically
> >like a recording. Wo
Russell Standish wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:32:14PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > Bruno Marchal writes:
> >
> > > > The other sticking point is, given computationalism
> > > > is right, what does it take to implement a computation? There have
> > > > been arguments
> > > > th
Brent meeker writes (quoting SP):
> > Every physical system contains if-then statements. If the grooves on the
> > record were different,
> > then the sound coming out of the speakers would also be different.
>
> That's not a statement contained in the physical system; it's a statement
> abou
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> concerning process and programs, all boils down to the timeless/time argument.
>
> I'm astonished that you accept time as is, I mean if time there is it has been
> created at the same time as our universe in the bigbang. Time begin when the
> universe begin, so yo
Hi,
concerning process and programs, all boils down to the timeless/time argument.
I'm astonished that you accept time as is, I mean if time there is it has been
created at the same time as our universe in the bigbang. Time begin when the
universe begin, so you accept that time can occur in a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 21-août-06, à 16:01, 1Z a écrit :
>
> > Exactly. And if non-phsyical systems (Plato' Heaven) don't
> > implement counterfactuals, then they can't run programmes,
> > and if Plato's heaven can't run programmes, it can't be running us as
> > programmes.
>
> I would say tha
Tom Caylor wrote:
> I'd say a candidate for making AR false is the behavior of the prime
> numbers, as has been discussed regarding your Riemann zeta function
> TOE. As I suggested on that thread, it could be that the behavior of
> the Riemann zeta function follows a collapse that is dependent
Le 22-août-06, à 05:32, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
skip
I already told you that I interpret
There exists a prim
Le 19-août-06, à 21:13, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (John M.) a écrit :
> BTW I have a problem with the "perfect" 6:
> ITS DIVISORS are 1,2,3,6, the sum of which is 12, not 6 and it looks
> that
> there is NO other perfect number in this sense either.
I have define a number to be perfect when it is eq
Le 21-août-06, à 16:01, 1Z a écrit :
> Exactly. And if non-phsyical systems (Plato' Heaven) don't
> implement counterfactuals, then they can't run programmes,
> and if Plato's heaven can't run programmes, it can't be running us as
> programmes.
I would say that only non-physical system implemen
Le 19-août-06, à 16:35, 1Z a écrit :
> No, I am suggesting that 0-width slices don't contain
> enough information to predict future states in physics.
What about a quantum state?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
Le 21-août-06, à 20:28, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:32:14PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal writes:
>>
The other sticking point is, given computationalism
is right, what does it take to implement a computation? There have
been ar
Tom Caylor writes:
> As I remember it, my interpretation/expansion of the "Yes Doctor"
> assumption is that 1) there is a (finite of course) level of (digital)
> substitution (called the "correct level of substitution") that is
> sufficient to represent "all that I am", and "all that I could be i
29 matches
Mail list logo
