God made the integers, all else is the work of man. I'VE GOT IT But I'm not
going to go running out naked.
Bruno, ask yourself this question: if you were an integer, how would you factor
yourself?
--nbsp;
Mark Buda lt;her...@acm.orggt;
I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.
Gentlemen, I have figured out what Pythagoras's big secret was and what
the whole 2012 Mayan calendar thing relates and the mechanism behind it
and the relationship between evolution, intelligent design, quantum
mechanics, objective reality, subjective reality, narrative reality, human
psychology,
If we are digital machine, the causal network is plausibly (with
Occam) 100% arithmetical.
Incompleteness explains why we will never get bored, indeed.
Bruno
On 13 Jul 2010, at 17:50, Mark Buda wrote:
The problem is that the causal network is half physical and half
mental and infinite and
On 12 Jul 2010, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/12/2010 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond reason, and find
some non provable or non rational truth.
What do you mean by a non-rational
On 13 Jul 2010, at 05:00, Allen Rex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond reason, and find
some non
provable or non rational truth.
This is not a
On 13 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2010, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/12/2010 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond reason, and
find some non provable or non
On 7/12/2010 10:54 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 7/12/2010 8:00 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
The problem is that the causal network is half physical and half mental and
infinite and looped in such a way that you will never get bored, guys. Trust
me. It's going to be glorious.
--nbsp;
Mark Buda lt;her...@acm.orggt;
I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.
On Jul 13, 2010
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 7/12/2010 10:54 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
So, if the deterministic physicalists are right then given the initial
conditions of the universe plus the causal laws of physics as applied
over ~13.7 billion years, you
On 7/13/2010 1:52 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 7/12/2010 10:54 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
So, if the deterministic physicalists are right then given the initial
conditions of the universe plus the causal laws of
Brent (and Bruno?)
I salute Brent as fellow agnostic (cf: your closing sentence).
Then again I THINK (for me, comparing my 4th to 5th language) reason is
slightly different in taste from raison - closer to Bruno's
motherly vocabulary. Anyway, both are the products of human thinking, human
logic,
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond reason, and find
some non provable or non rational truth.
This is not a defeat of reason. It is the complete contrary, I would
say.
Bruno
On 02 Jul 2010, at 22:55, rexallen...@gmail.com
On 7/12/2010 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go /beyond/ reason, and find
some non provable or non rational truth.
What do you mean by a non-rational truth? A statement that is true but
unprovable or a
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
You don't spell out what this principle of facticity is, but it seems that
it refers not to the world, but to our explanations of the world.
So the first sentence says: “I call 'facticity' the absence of reason
for
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond reason, and find some non
provable or non rational truth.
This is not a defeat of reason. It is the complete contrary,
On 7/12/2010 7:56 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
You don't spell out what this principle of facticity is, but it seems that
it refers not to the world, but to our explanations of the world.
So the first sentence says:
On 7/12/2010 8:00 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond reason, and find some non
provable or non rational truth.
This is not a
circle instead of a virtuous one?
it is incumbent upon it to uncover a reason that
would prove capable of accounting for everything,
Who says it's incumbent...and why should I care?
Quentin Meillassoux...and because you’re intellectually curious?
Actually, you’re more intellectually grumpy I
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 7/12/2010 8:00 PM, Allen Rex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.
What machines can do is to use reason to go beyond
Any thoughts?
http://speculativeheresy.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3729-time_without_becoming.pdf
I call 'facticity' the absence of reason for any reality; in other
words, the impossibility of providing an ultimate ground for the
existence of any being. We can only attain conditional necessity,
20 matches
Mail list logo
