On 28/12/2008, at 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> With
> Everett everything becomes clearer: nature does not collapse the wave,
> and thus, does not provide any examples of a machine generating truly
> random events. Randomness appears in the mind of the multiplied
> observers, exactly like in
On 27 Dec 2008, at 20:50, Günther Greindl wrote:
> I agree with Bruno that all empirical evidence in this universe
> suggest
> that CT = PCT. But this need not be so, in a logical sense.
Indeed. UDA shows that PCT is a mysterious, if not *the* mystery with
CT. Logicaly, and a priori, CT im
Stathis,
>
> From the SEP article:
> that a human being unaided by machinery is capable of carrying out --
> carries no implication concerning the extent of the procedures that
> machines are capable of carrying out, even machines acting in
> accordance with 'explicitly stated rules'. For among
Hi Kim,
I'm afraid I probably don't understand your question. It seems to me
you are using in an informal context some terms like if they have
precise meaning.
I will make a try, so as to be clearer on the point raised by Günther
and Abram.
On 26 Dec 2008, at 22:49, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
Abram,
>
> Thanks for the reference. That book sounds very interesting...
> unfortunately it is also very expensive.
Then don't buy it. In my opinion, well to get the AUDA, the following
one are without doubt more genuine.
Actually I complained often that the Boolos 1979 book was out of stoc
On 27/12/2008, at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> nd sometimes, even that is not enough, and you have to climb on the
> higher infinities. I think Kim was asking for an example of well-
> defined notions which are not effective. The existence of such non
> effective objects is not obvious at all
On 26 Dec 2008, at 20:24, Abram Demski wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> In one sense those examples are things for which (finite) reasoning
> fails, but I would still say that they are governed by (finite) rules
> and possess a (finite) description--
Yes but we have to bet we share the standard interpreta
Bruno,
Thanks for the reference. That book sounds very interesting...
unfortunately it is also very expensive.
--Abram
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The
Bruno,
In one sense those examples are things for which (finite) reasoning
fails, but I would still say that they are governed by (finite) rules
and possess a (finite) description-- the problem is "merely" that it
takes infinite amounts of time to derive the consequences of those
rules/descriptio
On 25 Dec 2008, at 22:27, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno,
>>>
>>> I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
>>> machine is any system that can be logically descri
On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:10, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
>> But no weakening of comp based on nature is
>> known to escape the replicability. Even the non cloning theorem in QM
>> cannot be used to escape the UDA conclusion.
>
> I already wanted to ask you on this one: you have said before
Hi Günther,
On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:01, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
>>> This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every
>>> scientifically minded person.
>>
>> Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted?
>
> Yes, it is an assumption - that is why i
2008/12/26 Günther Greindl wrote:
>> And this assumption is quite close to comp in the sense that nobody
>> knows about
>> any "natural" machine not being turing emulable. Even quantum machine,
>> accepting QM without collapse.
>
> That is true, but we have to be careful in our reasoning.
>
> Loo
Kim,
Right, that can't be done-- maybe such a system exists, but if so then
our rationality basically fails to apply to it. So as Gunther says,
the broader version of mechanism "can be granted by every
scientifically minded person".
--Abram
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
>
>>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
>> machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that
>> is governed by rules and has a defin
Bruno,
> But no weakening of comp based on nature is
> known to escape the replicability. Even the non cloning theorem in QM
> cannot be used to escape the UDA conclusion.
I already wanted to ask you on this one: you have said before on the
list that quantum-no cloning does not make a problem
Bruno,
>> This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every
>> scientifically minded person.
>
> Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted?
Yes, it is an assumption - that is why is wrote "scientifically minded"
- if you are in any way naturalist (and a
On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
> machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that
> is governed by rules and has a definite description.
Then Church thesis entails it is not broade
Bruno,
I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that
is governed by rules and has a definite description. Such machines are
of course not necessarily computable; oracle machines and so on can be
logically des
On 24 Dec 2008, at 16:41, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Kim, Bruno,
>
>
>> Not at all. You have already done the first and last leap of faith of
>> the reasoning when accepting the digital brain at the first step. I
>> am
>> aware that you are not aware of that, because in the reply you seem
>>
Kim, Bruno,
> Not at all. You have already done the first and last leap of faith of
> the reasoning when accepting the digital brain at the first step. I am
> aware that you are not aware of that, because in the reply you seem to
> believe that the MEC hypothesis can be taken for granted. But
21 matches
Mail list logo
