Hi Tom,
Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be
a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme.
Right. But full of subtle variations.
It is all normal to have a lot of deja vu when you make a journey
across a multiverse ...
I have never been
able to
On 13 Aug, 00:03, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but One Universe (or at least, non-MMW) methodology does
not claim or pretend or wish to have 0 axioms. I aims for an
ontologically
parsimonious explanation that matches the evidence.
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 13 Aug, 00:03, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but One Universe (or at least, non-MMW) methodology does
not claim or pretend or wish to have 0 axioms. I aims for an
ontologically
parsimonious
On 13 Aug, 18:58, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 13 Aug, 00:03, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but One Universe (or at least, non-MMW) methodology does
not claim or pretend or
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then you had better say what the problem is.
Why one ?
The universe is all there is. How could you have more than one all-
there-is?
Well you're playing with the word here. It's hand waving.
I am not saying there is one universe. I am saying there is
On 13 Aug, 20:38, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then you had better say what the problem is.
Why one ?
The universe is all there is. How could you have more than one all-
there-is?
Well you're playing with the word here. It's hand
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sure, why one then ?
It would be the smallest number that fits the facts.
Which facts ?
it is not simpler on the entity version of O's R, and it does not
fit the evidence because of the WR problem.
Yes but I see 'real switch' problem as equally
On 13 Aug, 21:05, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sure, why one then ?
It would be the smallest number that fits the facts.
Which facts ?
The observed ones.
it is not simpler on the entity version of O's R, and it does not
fit the
When the universe will end is '17 is prime' still true ?
Me winning the lotery is a WR event... I play lotery, I do not win
therefore no one wins... It's basically your argument about WR.
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 13 Aug, 21:05, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/13
On 13 Aug, 21:47, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the universe will end is '17 is prime' still true ?
Me winning the lotery is a WR event... I play lotery, I do not win
therefore no one wins... It's basically your argument about WR.
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 13
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2008/8/13 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
No you devise this in 2 parts, I think only the abstract world is
ontologically primary.
That is your conclusions. You cannot assume it in order to
argue for it.
I do not assume them.
Then you need some other way of getting your
2008/8/13 Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've been following this back-and-forth with interest. The above leads to an
interesting question which I will raise after a couple of background points.
First, I don't think a conscious AI can exist independent of some environment
of
which it is
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2008/8/13 Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've been following this back-and-forth with interest. The above leads to an
interesting question which I will raise after a couple of background points.
First, I don't think a conscious AI can exist independent of some
13 matches
Mail list logo
