On 03 Dec 2008, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
... A computation is a more sophisticated object, and
digitalness makes all the difference. In a rock, I don't see any
working digitalness, nor even analogs of this digitalness.
Isn't this a matter of interpretation? Even the 1s and 0s of a
On 04 Dec 2008, at 00:29, M.A. wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I'm quoting your response to an older post because I
have a residual question. If I improve my ability to select the
best future outcomes, don't I also choose the worst ones according
to MWI and the rule of
2008/12/1 Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, consciousness supervenes on computation, but that computation
needs to actually take place (meaning, physically). Otherwise, how
could consciousness supervene on it? Now, in order for a computation
to be physically instantiated, the physical
On 05 Dec 2008, at 03:50, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hmmm... It means you have still a little problem with step seven. I
wish we share a computable environment, but we cannot decide this at
will. I agree we have empirical
On 05 Dec 2008, at 03:56, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:53:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I really don't know. I expect that the mathematical structure, as
seen
from inside, is so big that Platonia cannot have it neither as
element
nor as subpart. (Ah, well, I
On 04 Dec 2008, at 15:58, Abram Demski wrote:
PS Abram. I think I will have to meditate a bit longer on your
(difficult) post. You may have a point (hopefully only pedagogical :)
A little bit more commentary may be in order then... I think my point
may be halfway between pedagogical and
Kim,
I enjoyed your bilingual blurb 'around' music, as I guess.
Is mathematique (numbers?) something like music? a gift one either has or
not?
David Bohm said (and I have great esteem for the man) that numbers are human
creations.
If Bruno - and his cohorts - state that everything is just numbers
Bruno,
Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards better
outcomes, the entire group advances? If the worst are always proportionately
opposite to the best, and the best keep improving themselves, don't they pull
the worst up with them? Just a hopeful thought. M.A.
Stathis,
I think I can get around your objection by pointing out that the
structure of counterfactuals is quite different for a recording vs. a
full human who is wired to be killed if they deviate from a recording.
Someone could fairly easily disarm the killing device, whereas it
would be quite
Bruno,
Are you asserting this based on published findings concerning
provability logic? If so, I would be very interested in references. If
not, then your results obviously seem publishable :). That is, if you
can show that huge amounts of set theory beyond ZFC emerge from
provability logic in
Notes from the Court Jester:
Math can describe the universe as it is - our most powerful mental
ability; no question about it
You have to be right at every step of the way when you use math -
inconsistency points to a lack of logical connection between steps and
is tantamount to error
On 06/12/2008, at 1:03 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Kim,
I enjoyed your bilingual blurb 'around' music, as I guess.
Is mathematique (numbers?) something like music? a gift one either
has or not?
Every gene helps, I suppose. I have musicians on both sides of my
family, one of whom is a
2008/12/6 Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stathis,
I think I can get around your objection by pointing out that the
structure of counterfactuals is quite different for a recording vs. a
full human who is wired to be killed if they deviate from a recording.
Someone could fairly easily
Can mathematics describe an EVOLVING universe as accurately as it can
describe a static one? Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity and all
the subtle variants on these help to do so. Bruno's comp hyp seems to
address an 'eternal' if not somewhat static reality that might even be
taken as
Hi Stathis,
This seems to be getting away from the simple requirement that the
computer be able to handle counterfactuals. What if the device were
not easy to disarm, but almost impossible to disarm? What if it had
tentacles in every neurone, ready to destroy it if it fired at the
wrong
Bruno,
Could you possibly link to the conversation with George Levy you refer
to? I did not find it looking on my own.
--Abram
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05 Dec 2008, at 03:56, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:53:11PM
On 06/12/2008, at 12:59 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
Can mathematics describe an EVOLVING universe as accurately as it can
describe a static one? Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity and
all
the subtle variants on these help to do so. Bruno's comp hyp seems to
address an 'eternal' if not
I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of chaos
- something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt
the stance of always launching your prediction from a single present -
the one you happen to find yourself in.
I think you mean randomness, not chaos.
18 matches
Mail list logo
