Chris,
I get an empty message here.
Bruno
On 18 Sep 2013, at 17:57, chris peck wrote:
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at
On 18 Sep 2013, at 19:32, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Name a number relation that does not involve a computation or
some other process!
It is difference between a number j used as a name for a program,
like in the arithmetical relation
On 18 Sep 2013, at 21:45, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 11:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
snip
But maybe it doesn't. At least some week form of solipsism, where
there is in fact only me, but the notion of I is
On 18 Sep 2013, at 20:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I naturally took an extreme example to make my point.
I do that often too, but here it weakened your point. Everyone
(except Sunday philosopher) agree on 0, and its successor.
Also some serious
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:14:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Computers don't use symbols.
?
They use physics,
???
You have been less Aristotelian in some other posts.
If I build a computer out of gears, does it use
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 21:45, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 11:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
snip
But maybe it doesn't. At least some week
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:26:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
snip
Beyond the ambiguities, comp put the physical universe in the gap,
when the gap is modeled by the logic * minus the logic not-*.
Why just the physical
Bruno, do you hold Occam a panacea? I hold it an extremely sharp version
for medieval primitive ignorance made as scientific: to disregard the
'total' we don't know and concentrate on the 'known' (knowable?) part only.
Just as the position of conventioal sciences nowadays. The ultimate
Occanism
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:43:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:14:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Computers don't use symbols.
?
They use physics,
???
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:55:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:26:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
snip
Beyond the ambiguities, comp put the physical universe in the gap,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all computations must use
energy and generate heat. And what's the
Also some serious mathematicians are finitists.
The Meaning of Pure Mathematics
Author(s): Jan MycielskiSource: Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug.,
1989), pp. 315-320Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30227216 .
Come on! He believes that
Hi Chris,
OK. Thanks for the precisions. I like Popper, for its epistemology
(modulo the chosen vocabulary).,
Yet, he disappointed me on QM, and even more on the mind-body problem,
where he defended the Eccles dualist, and non mechanist, theory.
But at least he tried, and he didn't put the
On 20 September 2013 05:31, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all
Just thought you should know that. On this day in 1893 in New Zealand, the
other half of the adult population got the right to vote. (Who says NZ is
behind the times? ... Apart from almost everybody, I mean?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hi John
It doesn't take a genius to realize that if a idea isn't getting anywhere,
that is to say if it doesn't produce new interesting ideas, your time would
be better spent doing something else.
Whats with this idea that the only good ideas are ones it would take a genius
to realize?
16 matches
Mail list logo
