I don´t know what Math is.
If math is all that is free from contradictions and can be expressed using
the language of mathematics, then any description at any level can be math.
For example the set of positions and speeds of the particles of a piece of
dirt.
That description has nothing pure to s
I suspect that this impossibility is because math uses concept of a
model, while truth refers to the match of facts of the model with facts of
the reality . Or at least to facts of a metamodel outside of the model.
That is AFAIK the Tarsky idea.
For example, "All men are mortal is true" . Here s
On 24 Mar 2013, at 18:27, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),
There's a difference between believing specific propositions and
On 24 Mar 2013, at 18:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/24/2013 7:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
simply wishful thinking?
We can already listen to the ideally correct machines on this. They
already grasp UDA and provides the solu
On 24 Mar 2013, at 20:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 12:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:13:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2013, at 18:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursd
I think that you don´t mean religión but natural theology in the sense of a
free search for ultimate meaning by logic and reasoning about the reality
(in which the desperation about our ignorance and thus about what to do in
life indeed becomes a fact of this reality. This last may be a major point
On 24 Mar 2013, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/24/2013 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That kind of things will happen for any type of beliefs, with human
and machines,
Sure, it's called learning from your elders. My parents told me to
look both ways before crossing the street and I believ
I mean:
ultimately the aestetic pleasure of Math derives from the natural impulse
to search for efficient algoritms useful for deduction
2013/3/25 Alberto G. Corona
> I don´t know what Math is.
>
> If math is all that is free from contradictions and can be expressed using
> the language of ma
On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:45:30 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> I don´t know what Math is.
>
> If math is all that is free from contradictions and can be expressed using
> the language of mathematics, then any description at any level can be math.
> For example the set of positions a
On Monday, March 25, 2013 6:26:00 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Mar 2013, at 20:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2013, at 12:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:13:27 AM
On 3/25/2013 6:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> I suspect that this impossibility is because math uses concept of a
> model, while truth refers to the match of facts of the model with
> facts of the reality . Or at least to facts of a metamodel outside of
> the model. That is AFAIK the Tarsky ide
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/24/2013 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/24/2013 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
By the way, regulation only "protects us" from accessing effective
trea
> No machine can distinguish randomness from the behavior of a more complex
machine than herself
It's true that in general a machine cannot prove that something
is purely random, but a human can't do that either nor can anything else.
If the smallest computer program that can generate a string of
On 24 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 02:05:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2013, at 13:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I still find it hard to grasp how we could have a creative process
without some degree of random exploration.
Why random. Pseudo
On 25 Mar 2013, at 11:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I suspect that this impossibility is because math uses concept of a
model, while truth refers to the match of facts of the model with
facts of the reality . Or at least to facts of a metamodel outside
of the model. That is AFAIK the Tarsky
On 25 Mar 2013, at 11:37, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I think that you don´t mean religión but natural theology in the
sense of a free search for ultimate meaning by logic and reasoning
about the reality (in which the desperation about our ignorance and
thus about what to do in life indeed be
On 25 Mar 2013, at 12:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I mean:
ultimately the aestetic pleasure of Math derives from the natural
impulse to search for efficient algoritms useful for deduction
Hmm The algorithmic is something both old and new, but it
constitutes a little part of math. Theo
On 25 Mar 2013, at 14:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2013 6:26:00 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 20:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 12:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday
On 25 Mar 2013, at 15:47, John Clark wrote:
> No machine can distinguish randomness from the behavior of a more
complex machine than herself
It's true that in general a machine cannot prove that something is
purely random, but a human can't do that either nor can anything
else. If the sm
On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:25:30 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Mar 2013, at 14:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 6:26:00 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2013, at 20:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44:01 PM
>
> "*CJ* Can you tell me of a case of "greedy reductionism" that's angered
> you?
> *DD* I haven't been angered but I have been frustrated by some
> neuroscientists who say we do not have free will and in some cases this
> position has implications in law and morality. They argue your mind
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:59:05PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >This is true, however real randomness is aavailable, through the very
> >first person ineterminancy phenomenon you mention below, and evolution
> >doesn't care, it will exploi
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> "CJ Can you tell me of a case of "greedy reductionism" that's angered you?
>
>
>>
>> DD I haven't been angered but I have been frustrated by some
>> neuroscientists who say we do not have free will and in some cases this
>> position has imp
On Monday, March 25, 2013 8:44:24 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> >> "CJ Can you tell me of a case of "greedy reductionism" that's angered
> you?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> DD I haven't been angered but I have been frustrated by some
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
