2009/8/14 1Z :
>> I think need to take a hard line on RITSIAR. I feel that the key lies
>> in what Bruno terms the certainty of the ontological first person
>> (OFP): i.e. the sine qua non of reality as it is uniquely available to
>> us. Since this is inescapably the foundation of any and all
>
On 14 Aug 2009, at 18:55, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> This is a nice post, but you are still putting the horse before the
>> cart.
>> Now I can see that you have not yet grasp the main UDA point. Hope
>> you
>> have no problem with being frank, and a bit u
On 14 Aug 2009, at 18:05, David Nyman wrote:
> I have been accustomed to understand
> 'emulation' in the sense of a mathematical model of the evolution of
> physical systems, not an ontological reversal with what-is-emulated -
> hence this post. Why would the 'Turing emulability' of nature i
Rex Allen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are.
>> Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every
>> explanation needs to be a causal one.
>
> Well, I think that's what I'm saying. C
On 14 Aug, 09:51, Rex Allen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >> Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are.
>
> > Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every
> > explanation needs to be a causal one.
>
> Well, I think th
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> This is a nice post, but you are still putting the horse before the cart.
> Now I can see that you have not yet grasp the main UDA point. Hope you
> have no problem with being frank, and a bit undiplomatical, OK?
>
>
> On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:01, David Nyman
Rex Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>> The living brain and the executing computer program both just
>>> represent the contents of my conscious experience, in the same way
>>> that a map represents the actual terrain.
>>>
>> When you set fire to a m
2009/8/14 Bruno Marchal :
> Hi David,
> This is a nice post, but you are still putting the horse before the cart.
> Now I can see that you have not yet grasp the main UDA point. Hope you have
> no problem with being frank, and a bit undiplomatical, OK?
Don't worry Bruno, nothing pleases me more
2009/8/14 Brent Meeker :
> A good summary, David. However, there are some other possibilities.
> Physics as now conceived is based on real and complex numbers. It can
> only be approximated digitally. QM supposes true randomness, which
> Turing machines can't produce.
As Bruno said, a branchin
On 14 Aug, 09:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You are dismissing the first person indeterminacy. A stuffy TM can run
> a computation. But if a consciousness is attached to that computation,
> it is automatically attached to an infinity of immaterial and relative
> computations as well,
There's you
On 14 Aug, 04:34, Brent Meeker wrote:
> David Nyman wrote:
> > And in terms of stuffy ontology, it would be a successful model - but
> > you wouldn't expect to be able to build a house out of emulated
> > bricks.
>
> No, I really mean "as good as". In other words if we can model every detail
On 14 Aug, 02:18, David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/8/14 Brent Meeker :
> If we take 'sufficiently' to the limit I suppose I must agree. But as
> before, in terms of stuffy ontology, any digital emulation - if that's
> what we're still discussing - is a model, not the stuff modelled, and
> hence woul
On 10 Aug, 01:59, David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/8/7 Bruno Marchal :
>
>
>
> If it isn;t RITSIAR, it cannot be generating me. Mathematical
> proofs only prove mathematical "existence", not onltolgical
> existence. For a non-Platonist , 23 "exists" mathematically,
> but is not RITSI
On 14 Aug, 03:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
> > Here's a nice pic to use in discussion from GEB. The map for a
> > formal system (a tree). A formal system could not draw this picture.
>
> Where's your proof of this assertion?
Seconded.
--~--~-~--~~~--
I think I have at least two problems, not necessarily well formulated.
I accept that there are concepts(mathematical) that are not necessrily
part of the physical Universe(Multiverse). I do not see that there are
only the abstractions.
Also, Bruno mentions QM, as being included in COMP. QM is an
i
2009/8/14 Bruno Marchal :
>
> Rex, I have seen your post and I will take the time needed to answer
> it cautiously.
>
> Quentin, your post is simpler to answer, so I do it no, but then I
> have to do some works.
>
>
> On 14 Aug 2009, at 12:16, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>> 2009/8/14 Bruno Marchal
Rex, I have seen your post and I will take the time needed to answer
it cautiously.
Quentin, your post is simpler to answer, so I do it no, but then I
have to do some works.
On 14 Aug 2009, at 12:16, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 2009/8/14 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2009, at 03:18, Da
2009/8/14 Bruno Marchal :
>
>
> On 14 Aug 2009, at 03:18, David Nyman wrote:
>
>>
>> 2009/8/14 Brent Meeker :
>>> A sufficiently detailed, accurate and
>>> predictive numerical model is as good as the stuff it models
>>
>> And in terms of stuffy ontology, it would be a successful model - but
>> yo
On 14 Aug 2009, at 04:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Colin Hales wrote:
>> Here's a nice pic to use in discussion from GEB. The map for a
>> formal system (a tree). A formal system could not draw this picture.
>
> Where's your proof of this assertion?
Indeed. A case could be make that only a f
On 14 Aug 2009, at 03:21, Colin Hales wrote:
> Here's a nice pic to use in discussion from GEB. The map for a
> formal system (a tree). A formal system could not draw this picture.
> It is entirely and only ever 'a tree'. Humans dance in the forest.
> col
You may compare Hofstadter's
Brent,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are.
>
> Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every
> explanation needs to be a causal one.
Well, I think that's what I'm saying. Causal explanations are not
r
On 14 Aug 2009, at 03:18, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/8/14 Brent Meeker :
>
>> A good summary, David. However, there are some other possibilities.
>> Physics as now conceived is based on real and complex numbers. It can
>> only be approximated digitally. QM supposes true randomness, which
>> T
On 14 Aug 2009, at 01:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> David Nyman wrote:
>> Colin's recent interesting (not to say impassioned!) posts have - yet
>> again - made me realise the fundamental weakness of my grasp of some
>> of the discussions that involve Turing emulation - or emulability -
>> on
>>
Hi David,
This is a nice post, but you are still putting the horse before the
cart.
Now I can see that you have not yet grasp the main UDA point. Hope you
have no problem with being frank, and a bit undiplomatical, OK?
On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:01, David Nyman wrote:
>
> Colin's recent interest
On 13 Aug 2009, at 22:52, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
> There is an explicit formula that maps N onto Q.. I found it some
> years
> back.
I let you find it again :)
I will perhaps give one, from N to NxN, (and then Q), but it is not
needed. Brent's bijection is perfectly defined.
Could everyo
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>> The living brain and the executing computer program both just
>> represent the contents of my conscious experience, in the same way
>> that a map represents the actual terrain.
>
> When you set fire to a map the land doesn't burn.
>
If yo
Brent,
I said: this is food for Friday and the week-end, and you provide
already the solutions!
It is OK, and you are correct. Thanks for playing.
I add short comments. I have not much time till monday, and I intend
to come back on some issues. I will comment the important recent post
by D
Rex Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>> As such, I feel that it is reasonable to say that conscious experience
>>> itself is uncaused and fundamental.
>>>
>> This has no meaning for me. It is like saying "don't ask".
>>
>
> Hm. You don't a
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> As such, I feel that it is reasonable to say that conscious experience
>> itself is uncaused and fundamental.
>
> This has no meaning for me. It is like saying "don't ask".
Hm. You don't at all see what I'm trying to say?
Okay, how
29 matches
Mail list logo
