Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

On 3/16/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. In any case the > identity of a knots (mathematical, physical) rely in its topology, not > in such or such cartesian picture, even the "concrete" knots I put in > my pocket. The knots looses its

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Hi Brent, > > On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote: >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> > wrote: >>> > But these ideas illustrate a problem with >>> > "everythin

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Hi Brent, On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > But these ideas illustrate a problem with > > > "everything-exists". Everything conceiv

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > But these ideas illustrate a problem with > > "everything-exists". Everything conceivable, i.e. not > > self-contradictory is so ill defined

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/15/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But these ideas illustrate a problem with > > "everything-exists". Everything conceivable, i.e. not > > self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems impossible to assign > > any measure to it, and without a measure, somethi

Re: The Meaning of Life

Thank you, Russell John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I think high energy physicists talk about "colour charge", rather than "colour pole", but th

Re: The Meaning of Life

- Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life (Brent's question skipped)... BM: Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natur

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

John M wrote: > Bruno and Brent: > Are we back at the "Aris-total" i.e. the "sum" considered "more" than > its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes > more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify. But components are only part of a reductionist model

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Bruno and Brent: Are we back at the "Aris-total" i.e. the "sum" considered "more" than its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify. Qualia, functions, even out-of-boundary effects are active in identifying an

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

I looked at your paper, interesting. One question: what do you mean by "exist" (Notably: "does NOT exist)? We think about it (no matter in how vague terms and weak understanding), we talk about it, our mind has a place in our thinking for that term, - does this not suffice for (in a WIDER??? me

Re: The Meaning of Life

Thanks for a clear mind, Bruno. But isn't it obvious? We can "know" about what we don't know ONLY if we do know 'about it'. Copernicus did not know that he does not know radioactivity. Aristotle did not denigrate the linearity of QM because he did not know these items. My 'firm' knowledge of m

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Bruno Marchal skrev: >> Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : >> >> Infinity is a logically impossible concept. >> >> I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some >> early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is >> deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented >> any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root". You >> mer

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > On 3/13/07, *Bruno Marchal* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an > electron + > > proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 15, 2:45 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible > that 17 is only contingently prime? Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' perspective) that the justification for 'primen

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : >  I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more b

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : > Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus' idea that God is infin

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 14-mars-07, à 08:15, Kim Jones a écrit : > I believe that the 'ability to conceive of nothing' - in a Loebian > machine context might be forbidden under comp (I could be wrong) The problem with words like "nothing" and "everything" is that they have as many meaning than there are theories

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/15/07, David Nyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Perhaps using the term "existence" for mathematical objects is > misleading. > > It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just > that > > they ex

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 14-mars-07, à 07:48, Kim Jones a écrit : > > Lurking, lurking... > > > This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, > aeons ago on my birthday last year. > > Thankee, Tom > > A little refresher now: > > > On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: > >> Besides the quest

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : > But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is > deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented > any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root". You > merely refer to "closed science" a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron > + > > proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its > > components; > > > Nor by any juxtap

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Le 13-mars-07, à 18:55, Brent Meeker a écrit : > Of course this is assuming that QM (which was discovered by applying > reductionist methods) is the correct EXACT theory - which is extremely > doubtful given its incompatibility with general relativity. All right. But note that both String Th