On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> A model is the math version of a reality.
>
A model could be accurate
or inaccurate.
> >
> A theory
>
A theory c
ould
also be accurate
or inaccurate.
>
is a finite object
A theory is a "finite object" but a mo
On 17 May 2017 20:05, "Brent Meeker" wrote:
On 5/17/2017 2:07 AM, David Nyman wrote:
To the extent that it ought to be possible for any program to
represent any other program by a suitable time-based transformation
applied by an external observer, then yes.
I think there's a subtlety here.
On 17 May 2017 at 19:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 5/17/2017 5:08 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
> As a (very) rough and partial analogy, if I am on deck, and you are
> observing me from aloft, I can grasp that you are in a position to command
> an entire domain of such personally "unprovable" fac
On 5/17/2017 2:07 AM, David Nyman wrote:
To the extent that it ought to be possible for any program to
represent any other program by a suitable time-based transformation
applied by an external observer, then yes.
I think there's a subtlety here. If we're speaking about *physica
On 5/17/2017 5:08 AM, David Nyman wrote:
As a (very) rough and partial analogy, if I am on deck, and you are
observing me from aloft, I can grasp that you are in a position to
command an entire domain of such personally "unprovable" facts about
me, despite my not being in a position to acc
On 17 May 2017 at 19:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 5/17/2017 2:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
>> The problem comes only if you attempt to "reverse interpret" these
>> transformations, in the computationalist framework, *as computation per
>> se* and hence, by assumption, as having a supervenienc
On 5/17/2017 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. I might try to add some possible mathematical precision, but
I need to think a bit on this. Later. Up to now, the B of Bp & p is
interpreted by its computational rendering, but "B" is really
provability, and not computation. Up to here, that
On 5/17/2017 2:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
The problem comes only if you attempt to "reverse interpret" these
transformations, in the computationalist framework, *as computation
per se* and hence, by assumption, as having a supervenience relation
with consciousness. This then introduces an amb
On 17 May 2017 2:34 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
>
> >
>
> On 17 May 2017, at 14:08, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
> >>
>>
>> On 17 May 2017 11:27 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
>
> >>>
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2017, at 12:06, David Nyman wrote:
>>>
>
>
On 17 May 2017 8:06 a.m., "Bruno
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became the M
>> man and the many who saw W became the W man,
>>
>> and I could have correctly predicted that long long ago.
>
>
> >
> Not at all.
>
> They got the i
On 17 May 2017, at 14:08, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 May 2017 11:27 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 12:06, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 May 2017 8:06 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 16 May 2017, at 17:34, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 May 2017 at 08:07, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 May 2017 11:27 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 12:06, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 May 2017 8:06 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 16 May 2017, at 17:34, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 May 2017 at 08:07, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2017, at 22:44, David Nyman wrote:
>
On 17 May 2017, at 12:06, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 May 2017 8:06 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 16 May 2017, at 17:34, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 May 2017 at 08:07, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2017, at 22:44, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 May 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On
On 17 May 2017, at 11:35, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 May 2017 7:42 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 16 May 2017, at 10:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:47:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 May 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:0
On 17 May 2017 8:06 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 16 May 2017, at 17:34, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 May 2017 at 08:07, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2017, at 22:44, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15 May 2017, at 12:38, David Nyman w
On 16 May 2017, at 23:44, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> they could not, for purely logical reason, predict the bit of
information they just got.
The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became
the M man and the many who s
On 17 May 2017 7:42 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 16 May 2017, at 10:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:47:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 May 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 16 May 2017, at 23:32, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> There is no mathematical reason time or space or
anything else can't be continuous, nor can mathematics find
anything special about the numbers 1.6*10^-35 or
5.4*10^-43 , bu
On 17 May 2017 5:44 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Is that not also true of consciousness supervening on a computers
> execution of a program? What it is conscious "of" depends on its
> relation to the environment - e.g. what the
On 16 May 2017, at 17:34, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 May 2017 at 08:07, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2017, at 22:44, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 May 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2017, at 12:38, David Nyman wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about physical supervenience in
20 matches
Mail list logo
