On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 26/04/2017 7:13 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 04:45:00PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I can understand how this epstemological model can lead to the
> intuition that mathematics is a "by-product" of physics, but I have a
> hard time accepting that it is more than an intuition.
>
> I am not arguing that this is not
On 27/04/2017 12:45 am, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Bruce Kellett
The issue at stake here appears to be whether arithmetic (and mathematics)
can be derived form physics, or has to have some non-physical origin. As I
said to Bruno a short time ago, the derivation of this
On 4/26/2017 4:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Give us the meat of your arguments and I promise to read with an open
mind. In my case, I am mostly interested in the first principles that
allow you to claim that consciousness emerges from complex
interactions between physical entities.
I think thi
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 26/04/2017 9:39 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Bruce Kellett
>>>
>>> Not at all. Physics does not assume arithmetic or mathematics, it derives
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Give the proof, then.
It's "vaporwa
On 26/04/2017 9:39 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Bruce Kellett
Not at all. Physics does not assume arithmetic or mathematics, it derives
them.
Give the proof, then.
It's "vaporware science", just like the first principles that explain
emergentism. People allude to t
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 26/04/2017 7:24 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25 Apr 2017, at 03
On 26/04/2017 7:24 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2
On 26/04/2017 7:13 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Eve
On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
"Quentin Anciaux":
How can you justify logic
On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
"Quentin Anciaux":
How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to
p
On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
"Quentin Anciaux":
How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to
prove anything? You're building your lower layer u
On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
"Quentin Anciaux":
How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to
prove anything? You're building your lower layer upon an higher
layer... It's contrad
On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
"Quentin Anciaux":
How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove
anything? You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer...
It's contradictory.
# David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers abou
"Quentin Anciaux":
How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything?
You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's contradictory.
# David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers about the "physics of logic" (and
also about "introspective measuremen
16 matches
Mail list logo
