John Clark should get a kick out of this:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
A Scientifically-Supportable Notion of Free Will In Only 6 Controversial Steps: The
Looniest Talk I've Ever Given In My Life
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/freewill.ppt: Setting Time Aright (FQXi Conference),
On 10/30/2012 2:46 AM, meekerdb wrote:
John Clark should get a kick out of this:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
A Scientifically-Supportable Notion of Free Will In Only 6
Controversial Steps: The Looniest Talk I've Ever Given In My Life
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/freewill.ppt:
On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
We know that as well as we know anything about physics
This is not valid.
NOT A VALID POINT?!
Indeed.
A priori we can be dreaming in some world based on a
On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
p. 45 Agreed, we cannot demonstrate that in principle, as a matter
of logic, mathematical modeling must inevitably be a distortion of
Hi Roger,
Hope everything is fine with Sandy.
On 29 Oct 2012, at 20:21, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think you're right. Anyway, I've since decided that the numbers
have to be simply a priori. Like the pre-established (a priori)
Harmony.
I am OK with this. Note that it is
The storm has passed and all is well.
Luckily Rockville was hardly affected by the storm.
My electric power never even went out.
I hope everybody else is OK also.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/30/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
--
You received
Downward causation- the correct paradigm for science
Leibniz's metaphysics was created in the 17th century
to overcome the logical error on which all current
science is founded, namely the acceptance that mind and
matter can directly interact through effective (upward) causation,
although they
On 29.10.2012 20:44 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/29/2012 11:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 29.10.2012 19:21 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/29/2012 10:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes
of Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
On 30.10.2012 11:26 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
p. 45 Agreed, we cannot demonstrate that in principle, as a matter
of logic,
Roger,
Mind and matter can interact if they both contain BECs.
Richard
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Computationalism and downward causation -- Leibniz's new paradigm for
science
The new, strictly logical, Leibnizian view of the universe is
that
Hi Roger,
On 30 Oct 2012, at 11:41, Roger Clough wrote:
The storm has passed and all is well.
Luckily Rockville was hardly affected by the storm.
My electric power never even went out.
I hope everybody else is OK also.
Sandy seems impressive, but not that catastrophical, except for the
On 30 Oct 2012, at 12:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 30.10.2012 11:26 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
p. 45 Agreed, we cannot demonstrate
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the
concepts of numbers and their constructions, not to numbers themselves.
Truth applies to proposition, or sentences representing them for some machine/numbers.
If
On 10/30/2012 4:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 29.10.2012 20:44 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/29/2012 11:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 29.10.2012 19:21 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/29/2012 10:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems
apply only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not
to numbers themselves.
Truth applies to proposition, or sentences
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can
they dream?
Yes, the universal numbers can have concept.
Dear Bruno,
Let's start over. Please plain in detail what is a universal number
and how it (and not ordinary numbers)
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
How do you explain the communicability of the meaning of these
axioms? You have written words
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems
apply only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not
to numbers themselves.
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply
only to the concepts of numbers
2012/10/30 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So you were not answering the question in my post, which can be sum
up: are you OK with step 3, and what about step 4?
I don't even remember what step 2 was, I found a blunder in your
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 10/30/2012 10:39 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the
concepts of numbers and their
On 10/30/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is
On 10/30/2012 11:00 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51
On 10/30/2012 11:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43
On 10/30/2012 2:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
I think you are confusing the tokens 2 = 1+1 with the proposition 2
= 1+1. The former requires someone who understands the notation to
interpret it, but the latter is the interpretation, i.e. the concept.
A concept has meaning by definition, otherwise
On 10/30/2012 2:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it still
be true that Holmes assistant is Watson?
Brent
If there there where no humans and no human level consciousness,
what meaning would the sentence It is true that Holmes assistant
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols
17 is prime is an indicator of some particular mathematical object
and one of its particular properties, then how does 17 is prime
come to mean anything at all?
I agree with that.
On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
I think you are confusing the tokens 2 = 1+1 with the proposition 2 = 1+1. The
former requires someone who understands the notation to interpret it, but the latter is
the interpretation, i.e. the concept. A
On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime is
an indicator of some particular mathematical object and one of its particular
properties, then how does 17 is prime come to
On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Brent,
What is it that distinguishes between tokens and propositions?
Tokens are the physical elements (e.g. letters, words, sounds) that
are used to represent a proposition in a particular
On 10/30/2012 5:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of
symbols 17 is prime is an indicator of some particular
mathematical object and one of its particular
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Brent,
What is it that distinguishes between tokens and propositions?
Tokens are the physical elements (e.g. letters, words, sounds) that are used to
On 10/30/2012 2:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime
is an indicator of some particular
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Building more complex structures out of simpler ones
by a simple set of rules (or any set of rules) seems to violate the second law
of thermodynamics. Do you have a way around the second law ?
Causation is one of those things that is higly context specific. One
mans cause is another's incidental factor.
Downward and upward causation are two ways of looking at the same
thing, serving different modes of explanation.
Although, the only downward causation I find believable is anthropic
40 matches
Mail list logo
