On 11/19/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view
On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:51, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> both the W-man and the M-man know perfectly well who they are,
Yes certainly they do, they know exactly who they are but they are
not the ones that Bruno Marchal asks questions and demands
prediction
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and
> geometry, I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for
> arithmetic.
Pythagoras discovered and proved his famous theorem using geometry, only
later was it expanded int
On 21 Nov 2012, at 14:10, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Isn't the Godel problem similar or related to saying that the
subject cannot be part of the predicate ?
Yes. the subject (1p) can't. But the machine can still refer to itself.
Then in any system
there will always be at least
On 21 Nov 2012, at 11:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm trying to understand your paper, but a seemingly much simpler
form of your argument keeps getting in the way. The
simpler form is the Lucas argument, discussed in great
scholarly detail on
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/
On 20 Nov 2012, at 20:47, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/11/20 Bruno Marchal
On 20 Nov 2012, at 16:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/11/11 Bruno Marchal
On 11 Nov 2012, at 01:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It is an observable fact. is obviously true that if you live in
a society
Dear Richard and Anna:
I have an easier stance on the subject: whatever 'comes up' in 'a' mind -
exists. If not otherwise: in thought (idea?). Once 'thought' about it, it
does
become part of the world.
Physical attributes may be considered by people who accept those figments
but even for those it s
Hi everything-list
Time is not a variable in the monadology, so everything
changes instantly, or at least at the speed of light.
The self-reference problem also shows up in Leibniz,
but now I see that that's why he used the verb "reflects."
Because each monad cannot see outside of his point of
r
Hi Russell Standish
Sorry, my mistake, I remembered wrong. It was somebody else.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/21/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Tim
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps I have gotten things wrong, but
Godel's problem seems to me to be the self-reference
problem uncovered by B Russell, namely
that a class (if I am using the right word) cannot
itself be a member of that class.
For example suppose we have a list of siblings, john, jacob
Hi Bruno Marchal
Isn't the Godel problem similar or related to saying that the
subject cannot be part of the predicate ? Then in any system
there will always be at least one subject, and that subject
cannot be part of the rest of the system ?
Which is the same as saying, along with Leibniz, tha
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm trying to understand your paper, but a seemingly much simpler
form of your argument keeps getting in the way. The
simpler form is the Lucas argument, discussed in great
scholarly detail on
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/
It seems to me to be self-evident that
1p cannot
12 matches
Mail list logo
