m $100, but I do not know whether I can extract
$10 from $INFINITE. Truely "continuous" entities do not exist (atleast
in the "matter" sense).
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
ersely, is it possible to bring together currently existing minds
to behave exactly like a HUGE computer? (this questin has a much more
practical and "sinister" motive)
any takers?
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
Mobile: +91 98 400 76411
things are true or false". A realist is even humbler: he knows that
even the logic we use is open to questioning, in other words
verifiable. true/false applies only to verifiable things. in not
assigning truth values to such statement a realist is not being lazy,
only being cautious (or realistic if you may).
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
ant chosen? Granted, we can't know what this distant objective reality
> is until we wait for the photons to reach us, but that doesn't make it
> nonsense. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy
> is objective reality, even though our subjective reality is that the
> supernova has not occurred. We have to wait a million years to make the
> discovery.
> Norman Samish
>
>
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
model of
computation used.
Or maybe I am totally off, in that case, sorry for blabbering without
reading up what "modal logics G and G*" exactly are.
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
a coincidence, or some act of a God
that I can never hope to explain to myself.
I can only agree to disagree by saying that any theory that explains
consciousness in terms of something more than just "interference of
events" on a HUGE scale, is pretty much the same as explaining away
coincidents
the multiverse as a partition with
equivalence classes which are maximal sets of connected "observer
moments", in other words, maximal sets of "mutually interfering
events". visualize this as connected components of a graph.
Defining entities in more than one different sets of words does not
rule out their qualitative identity. Every Observer-Moment is an
event. Every event is an Observer-Moment in some universe.
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
y concluding claim is this: We may some day have a
ToE that is in fact Consistent and Complete (finally TRUE), but we
will NEVER be sure that it is so.
[LC]
> Thanks for a nice try at clearing up what Jesse, at least,
> and I were discussing.
Maybe now I have managed to complicate things again:-)
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
sorry for the misaddressing...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aditya Varun Chadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 30, 2005 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
To: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At the risk of barging in once again,
> Since t
scourse, dear Bruno, I don't give a ___
> for your *hypothesis*.
>
> Moreover, please google for "naive realism". You'll find that this
> is the world view of children who have *no* idea of the processes
> by which their brains are embedded in physical reality.
r.
>
> What does this have to do with mathematics and models? If we are going
> to create/discover models of what we can all agree is sharp and definite-
> our physical world, we must be sure that our models agree with each other.
> This, of course, assumes that there is some connection between abstract and
> concrete aspect of *reality*.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile: +91 98 400 76411
Home: +91 11 2431 4486
Room #1034, Cauvery Hostel
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Chennai - 600 036
India
11 matches
Mail list logo
