Youness Ayaita wrote:
> I want to correct an error, the "1st idea" in my last reply was
> erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that
> do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be
> possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useles
I want to correct an error, the "1st idea" in my last reply was
erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that
do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be
possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless.
So, I restrict my argument
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> > These sorts of discussions "No-justification", "Zero-information
> > principle", "All of mathematics" and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and
> > Nothing (or should that be "du
On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Youness Ayaita wrote:
> > ...
> > I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
> > somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
> > course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is a
Bruno, that was quite a response. Let me just include those part to which I
have something to say - in most cases your 'half-agreement' cuts my guts.
==
"...I like very much David Deutsch's
idea that if we are scientist we are in principle willing to know that
our theory is wrong, but t
On 13 Sep, 12:47, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
> > > The amazing result of these simple consideration
Dear Bruno,
>> The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
>> definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
>
> Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
> appear.
You are right, my above sentence was too simple.
New try:
All sentence
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> ...
>
> I agree with this. You can rule out a theory when it leads to a
> contradiction, but only *once* you get that contradiction. (A theory
> can be contradictory without you ever knowing that fact).
>
A theory also can be contradicted by a fact. The theory need no
Youness Ayaita wrote:
> ...
> I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
> somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
> course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to
> a preimage x, we usually must know a formula first. But
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
> These sorts of discussions "No-justification", "Zero-information
> principle", "All of mathematics" and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and
> Nothing (or should that be "duelling") are really just motivators for
> getting at the ensemble, which turns
Dear Günther,
Le 12-sept.-07, à 16:49, Günther Greindl a écrit :
> The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
> definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
appear. "Axioms" are just proviso
On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
> > The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the
> > Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postu
On 12 Sep, 15:32, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For further
> research, it is then natural to identify imaginable things with their
> descriptions and to choose a simple alphabet for expressing the
> descriptions (e.g. strings of 0 and 1).
How would you express "A thing such that
On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
> The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the
> Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But how is
> this transition made? At this point I
14 matches
Mail list logo