On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
alternatives:
o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is
mistaken, or
o that scientific representation is not at
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is
not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some
scientific theory?
Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not
part
of a scientific
Anna,
I strongly suggest that any interested party read the paper
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0602/0602420.pdf as the copy below
leaves out a most interesting discussion of emergence and entanglement. And
besides the string landscape is not 10500 but rather the vastly larger
number
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
alternatives:
o that either the point about isomorphism and
Hi Alberto G. Corona
The only way to know reality is subjectively, just
as Descartes found. He threw everything out until
all he could know for sure was that he could think.
Reality is what is happening now, which is what
we can only know subjectively, from inside, by
aquaintance. We cannot
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Weyl makes complicated what is ultimately simple--
reality, which is subjective, which is experiencing,
which is now. Which is focussing your attention
on your breath going out and coming in. This is what
yoga teaches. Weyl does best we he touches on color.
Reality is
Hi Stephen P. King
All that we can know of reality is in the experience of now.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/4/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Roger,
Is God part of your reality and if so how do you experience God, or is
god just a theory.?
For me god is described by a theory.
Richard
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Weyl makes complicated what is ultimately simple--
reality,
Hi Stephen P. King
Necessary truths are never connected to facts,
because facts, being specific, can change.
I think there is a higher truth than the truth
of arithmetic, which I would call reality,
and this is simply the experience of now
subjectively. Meditation teaches this.
Prayer teaches
On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:51, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think the issue of your survival of the doctor's
operation or whatever is clouded by the
solipsism issue.
You might need to elaborate on this. It is ipso facto not solipsist as
we have a notion of 3-view and 1-views
On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:58, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think in computationalism you only have to be able
to say that the result is arithmetically or algebraically
true. Arithmetic truth is what you seek.
However, I still have yet to know if a particular
computation seems true to
Hi Stephen P. King
Necessary truths can't be contingent, because contingent
truths by definition are contingent on circumstances
and so may not always be true. Scientific truth, or
any truth of this world, is such.
Pierce taught that consensus or pragmatic truth is
supreme. What people
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:09, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, and keep in mind that there may be more than
one theory that gives the same results in the form of data.
This plays the key role. That all data structuring admit infinities of
theories, like each state of mind can be
On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:13, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Sorry, I misconstrued the river/man analogy. Heraclitus
said instead that a man cannot stand in the same river twice
(or even from moment to moment). It's just a statement
of contingency.
I don't believe that. In my childhood,
Hi Bruno Marchal
3-view is descriptive truth, 1-view truth is truth by acquaintance.
Descriptive truth is similar to your knowing about Bertrand Russell.
Or to know that in principle 1+1 =2.
Truth by acquaintance is that you have met Bertrand Russell.
Or you accept that 1 +1 = 2.
Roger
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:29, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
As to washington vs moscow, the man remains the same.
Although a man cannot stand in the same river twice,
his 1p or monad, his identity, remains the same.
OK.
The monad itself belongs to the supreme monad or
platonia (same
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
All theories are based on the a priori but
can only give contingent results (this world
results).
Hmm OK.
However, arithmetic is not a theory,
Sorry, but it is. I mean there are even many theories. Two important
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:45, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal and Stephen,
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/leibniz.html
Leibniz declares that there are two kinds of truth:
truths of reason [which are non-contradictory, are always either
true or false],
We can only hope that they are
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:00, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is
incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property
has some particular value and the absence of all other possible
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist
if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist,
therefore there is not 'truth' for a non-exitence
On 11/4/2012 12:37 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Horsefeathers
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horsefeathers! How is
the
On 11/4/2012 7:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
All that we can know of reality is in the experience of now.
Hi Roger,
Yes, in our mutual consistency and individually, but we have to
start with a 'now' at the 1p for each observer. Every observer perceived
itself at the
On 11/4/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines,
and thus to others. You argument is not valid because it beg the
question that number (related through the laws of + and *) emulated
computation to which comp attribute consciousness.
On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist
if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist,
therefore
On 03 Nov 2012, at 16:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How can anything emerge from something having non properties?
Magic?
Dear Bruno,
No, necessity. The
On 03 Nov 2012, at 16:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't consider truth as an object. The numbers can be
considered as the (only) object. truth concerns
On 11/4/2012 12:09 AM, John Mikes wrote:
snip
## to 9 I have objections. I cannot imagine (maybe my mistake)
evolution without a goal, a final aim which would require an
intelligent design to approach it. (I may have one: the
re-distribution into the Plenitude). My way (as of yesterday) is
On 11/4/2012 8:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Necessary truths can't be contingent, because contingent
truths by definition are contingent on circumstances
and so may not always be true. Scientific truth, or
any truth of this world, is such.
Dear Roger,
By contingent I
On 03 Nov 2012, at 18:28, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are the one pretending being able to predict what happens
after pushing the button, but you have always given a list of what
can happen, which is not a prediction.
A list is
On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not
infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's
metaphysics an enchanted land and confessed that
he hadn't a clue to
Hi Stephen and John:
I believe I absorbed the evolution is a random walk with a lower bound but
no upper bound from my readings of Stephen Gould. I have no memory of
where and when and the memory may be false. In any event I do not see that
it excludes selection. I think there was an
Rodger, why do you believe that religious truth is truth at all, much
less the highest truth? It's because most small children are genetically
hard wired to unquestionably believe most of what adults tell them and to
carry that belief until the day they die; that's why religious belief has a
very
Hi Everyone:
I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in
the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows:
i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe
that consciousness is distributed across life entities in
On 11/4/2012 1:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
alternatives:
o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is
mistaken, or
o
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is
not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some
scientific theory?
Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that
On 11/4/2012 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you are exactly missing the point that I have been repeating.
Truth is independent of a particular mind but it is not independent
of all minds.
This is ambiguous, as Arithmetical Truth contains the existence of all
mind, and even in the
On 11/4/2012 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The body problem *is* the result, and does constitute the conceptual
explantion of why we believe in bodies, despite the lack of it in
the ontology.
Well, do you want this problem to be solvable?
Sure. And AUDA is a beginning of the
On 11/4/2012 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Does the One have a Concept of The One as its unique 1p?
I think the inner God, alias the arithmetical 1p (not arithmetical
in the logician sense, but still applying to the machine) , alias Bp
p (Theaetetus on Bp) can be said to be a unique
On 11/4/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
The primacy of 17 or 43 or any other number is such that it can
be apprehended, at least in principle, by /at least one entity/
(please note that this is a lower bound concept!). This implies that
in the absence of that possibility
On 11/4/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not
infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's
metaphysics an enchanted
Hi Everyone:
I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in
the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows:
i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe
that consciousness is distributed across life entities in
Through the Stone Duality we know that every topology can be expressed by a
logical algebra...so...
Doesn't that make all forms of geometry, topology, or just 'forms' in
general completely redundant?
What would be the mathematical purpose of having this visual-spatial
representation of
44 matches
Mail list logo
