Re: Cooperation and Free Riders

On 7/12/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2012 4:04 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: We each one are free riders because we are selfish collaborators. A twist on selfish collaboration is the self deception: our memory is unconsciously distorted to support our case. we thinkl that we deserve mo

Re: Cooperation and Free Riders

On 7/12/2012 7:04 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/7/12 Stephen P. King > On 7/11/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Stephen: Well it愀 not cooperation between computer programs, but cooperation of entities in the abstract level. This can be

Re: Cooperation and Free Riders

Right. free rider is a pure defector. In a more realistic game, the entities can act with mixed strategies, sometimes as free riders, others as collaborators. This is the meaning of selfish collaborators. With the addition that, sometimes, what benefits the individual benefits also the collaboratio

Re: Cooperation and Free Riders

On 7/12/2012 4:04 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: We each one are free riders because we are selfish collaborators. A twist on selfish collaboration is the self deception: our memory is unconsciously distorted to support our case. we thinkl that we deserve more than the fair share etc. "Free rid

Re: Cooperation and Free Riders

2012/7/12 Stephen P. King > On 7/11/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > Stephen: > > Well it´s not cooperation between computer programs, but cooperation of > entities in the abstract level. This can be described mathematically or > simulated in a computer program. In both cases, it star

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > I am not an expert in this field > There are no experts in this field because there is no field. > but here is for example just a link to the university in Freiburg > http://www.uni-freiburg.de/universitaet-en/fakultaeten-einrichtungenwhe

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/12/2012 1:08 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > To reject *all* theologies, you need *a* theology. Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea but not a word; so "God" becomes "something more powerful t

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Then we should stop teaching Newtonian physics as well, since there are > no new advances there either. > Not so. A hurricane simulation is pure Newtonian physics and yet they are far far better now, that is to say they give us better under

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/11/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Matt Rydley "what is human" is a good introduction. From: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47413560/69/MATT-RIDLEY MATT RIDLEY Science Writer; Founding chairman of the International Centre for Life; Author,F rancis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code

Re: Cooperation and Free Riders

On 7/11/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Stephen: Well it愀 not cooperation between computer programs, but cooperation of entities in the abstract level. This can be described mathematically or simulated in a computer program. In both cases, it starts with a game with its rules goals w

Re: Oh no!

On 7/12/2012 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: > I profoundly disagree. What was found was a curve when the raw data was graphed in a particular way. There is no proof that this curve is uniquely represen

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/12/2012 12:28 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.07.2012 21:48 meekerdb said the following: On 7/10/2012 12:38 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Hence according to the authors, the M-theory governs absolutely everything including social sciences. But I am afraid that this is not what you would expect

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/12/2012 12:27 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I understand but the question in principle still remains. Who play the chess, I or the M-theory? There is no logical reason to think those two ways

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > To reject *all* theologies, you need *a* theology. > Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea but not a word; so "God" becomes "something more powerful than yourself" and now "theology" becomes "any field of study you think i

Re: Oh no!

On 7/12/2012 3:36 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.07.2012 20:38 Stephen P. King said the following: Say that it is not so! http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/?ref=rss Hi Stephen, Recently I have read Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cu

Re: Oh no!

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > > I profoundly disagree. What was found was a curve when the raw data > was graphed in a particular way. There is no proof that this curve is > uniquely representational of some "particle". The article certainly profoundly disagree

Re: esse est percipi?

On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can dream) and that their ideas are passive and

Re: Oh no!

On 10.07.2012 20:38 Stephen P. King said the following: Say that it is not so! http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/?ref=rss Hi Stephen, Recently I have read Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge This is

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 10.07.2012 21:48 meekerdb said the following: On 7/10/2012 12:38 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Hence according to the authors, the M-theory governs absolutely everything including social sciences. But I am afraid that this is not what you would expect. Why would you not expect a theory-of-every

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I understand but the question in principle still remains. Who play the chess, I or the M-theory? There is no logical reason to think those two ways of explaining the same phenomenon are incompa

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 11.07.2012 18:26 John Clark said the following: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law Does that mean you CAN imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is NOT determined by physical

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 11.07.2012 19:36 John Clark said the following: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What I like is that you will find as a department of theoretical theology as well as a department of practical theology. I disagree, I

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:36:32 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote: > > > > I disagree, I don't like it. You are assuming that there exists a > organized field of knowledge called "theology", but I can not find the > slightest evidence that is in fact true. Lawrence Krauss said that it is > his ha

Re: esse est percipi?

On 12 Jul 2012, at 11:34, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2012 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Esse is not percipi. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a diophantine polynomial equation".

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 12 Jul 2012, at 11:25, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2012 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2012, at 23:39, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What

Re: esse est percipi?

On 7/12/2012 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: *_Esse is not percipi_*. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a diophantine polynomial equation".

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 7/12/2012 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2012, at 23:39, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi > wrote: > In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What I like is that you

Re: esse est percipi?

On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can dream) and that their ideas are passive and yet can reproduce all phenomena that w

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:44, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 2:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2012, at 22:17, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 6:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Even the phisical TOE is part of this second world. there are no

Re: esse est percipi?

On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Esse is not percipi. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a diophantine polynomial equation". St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

On 11 Jul 2012, at 23:39, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What I like is that you will find as a department of theoretical theology as well as a depa

Re: Oh no!

On 11 Jul 2012, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 1:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If the boson of Higgs exists, by law, it *must* be retrievable from addition and multiplication If comp is true and the argument that everything (arithmetical) is realized holds. I am not sure what yo