That's a good example, actually!
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Can you give an example? What I'm led to think of is something like:
> % Add two and two
> print "4"
> halt
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
Can you give an example? What I'm led to think of is something like:
% Add two and two
print "4"
halt
Brent
On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking
The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing
machines...
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> On
On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:
On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
> I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
>
>
> I
What I meant was that the subjective experience of time would be the same
whether there was a material universe with real time, a material block
universe without time, or no material universe.
On 16 September 2016 at 02:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM,
On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet
consistent theories
I don't understand what you mean by that. I assume "theories" refers to
axiomatic systems.
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
According to Bruno it's in Platonia. It's timeless and doesn't "go", it
just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.
Brent
On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016
I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if there have
a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds. What I have trouble
with DM is that it is not obvious where we get that plurality. I still
suspect that a weak version of Tennenbaum's theorem could solve this
problem,
On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Stathis,
I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry
that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are
OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
> implicit order (the
In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent
relative order of the threads.
Brent
On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with
On 15 Sep 2016, at 09:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes
Could it be that the concrete is the subjective reflection of the abstract?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com>
On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King
> wrote:
Hi Stathis,
I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry
that we need a lot more detail,
There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
labels, not the change itself.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote:
In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 4:46:16 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno
Yes. Meditation to me feels like an attempt to gain control over
biology. Or perhaps just to make biology shut up for a second.
I think that its more an attempt to calm the nervous system, by focused
relaxation. Its the amygdala's way of quieting the fight-flight process of the
amygdala, and
On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Hi Stathis,
>
>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
> timing, order or duration of a and b are
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>
We
On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker
wrote:
In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.
The "execution" of the program is timeless and
23 matches
Mail list logo