So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the universe,
or is physics the top dog from the 1st split second? This seems to break down
much discussion here, with this question.
-Original Message-
From: John Clark
To: everything-list
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:42:22AM +0200, 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,
On 5/18/2017 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> And John Clark could have told them both that long long ago except for
>> the fact that before the duplication the W man and the M man did not exist.
>
>
> >
> If this suppresses the first person
On 18 May 2017 at 14:56, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 18 May 2017, at 14:31, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
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,
On 18 May 2017, at 01:15, John Clark wrote:
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.
This makes no sense with the technical sense of model by the logician.
On 17 May 2017, at 23:16, David Nyman wrote:
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
On 17 May 2017, at 20:49, 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" facts
On 17 May 2017, at 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
On 17 May 2017, at 18:18, John Clark wrote:
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
11 matches
Mail list logo