Hi John,
Le 11-nov.-07, à 23:33, John Mikes a écrit :
> Bruno, I hope it will be accessible to me, too, by simple computerese
> software.
Normally there should be no difficulties. My goal is not to explain all
the technics, but the minimal things which I estimate to be necessary
for having
Bruno, I hope it will be accessible to me, too, by simple computerese
software.
John
On Nov 8, 2007 11:31 AM, David Nyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> On Nov 6, 2:37 pm, Bruno Marchal < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have almost finished the posts on the lobian machine I have promised.
> >
On Nov 6, 2:37 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have almost finished the posts on the lobian machine I have promised.
> I have to make minor changes and to look a bit the spelling. I cannot
> do that this week, so I will send it next week. Thanks for your
> patience.
Thanks - I'l
Hi David,
I have almost finished the posts on the lobian machine I have promised.
I have to make minor changes and to look a bit the spelling. I cannot
do that this week, so I will send it next week. Thanks for your
patience. I give you the plan, though, which I will actually also
follow for
Dear Bruno,
> No. But making it precise and searching consequences helps to avoid
> misunderstanding. The comp hyp is really a religious belief: it *is* a
> belief in the fact that you can be reincarnated through a digital
> reconstitution of yourself relatively to some hopefully stable set of
Le 14-sept.-07, à 00:17, John Mikes a écrit :
> Bruno, that was quite a response. Let me just include those part to
> which I have something to say - in most cases your 'half-agreement'
> cuts my guts.
> ==
> "...I like very much David Deutsch's
> idea that if we are scientist we a
Dear Günther,
Le 13-sept.-07, à 21:37, Günther Greindl a écrit :
>
>>> The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
>>> definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
>>
>> Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
>> appear.
>
> You are r
Le 13-sept.-07, à 19:52, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> A theory also can be contradicted by a fact. The theory need not be
> contradictory, i.e. capable of proving false, in order to be
> contradicted.
Yes sure! Actually the second incompleteness theorem (GODEL II) makes
this remark genuine even
Bruno, that was quite a response. Let me just include those part to which I
have something to say - in most cases your 'half-agreement' cuts my guts.
==
"...I like very much David Deutsch's
idea that if we are scientist we are in principle willing to know that
our theory is wrong, but t
Dear Bruno,
>> The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
>> definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
>
> Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
> appear.
You are right, my above sentence was too simple.
New try:
All sentence
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> ...
>
> I agree with this. You can rule out a theory when it leads to a
> contradiction, but only *once* you get that contradiction. (A theory
> can be contradictory without you ever knowing that fact).
>
A theory also can be contradicted by a fact. The theory need no
Dear Günther,
Le 12-sept.-07, à 16:49, Günther Greindl a écrit :
> The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
> definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
appear. "Axioms" are just proviso
Dear Bruno, Dear List,
> You could be right. The point we are addressing is the question of
> making our hypotheses clear enough so that we can refute them or make
> sense of how we could have them refuted at least in principle.
>
>> I also keep away from ANY thought experiences, they are pro
Le 12-sept.-07, à 00:41, John Mikes a écrit :
> Bruno, you ARE a teacher (a good and passionate one) but your
> imagination is insufficient. You cannot imagine how much I don't
> know. pick up 'words' and 'phrases' and apply common sense to them
> with a certain authoritative flair, so thos
Bruno, you ARE a teacher (a good and passionate one) but your imagination is
insufficient. You cannot imagine how much I don't know. pick up 'words' and
'phrases' and apply common sense to them with a certain authoritative flair,
so those who understand the topic can think that I am talking sense
Le 10-sept.-07, à 21:03, John Mikes a écrit :
> Dear Bruno, i failed to acknowledge your kind reply - and others
> joining in - for the past month, not because I have been tied up with
> 'other' WEB lists, but because I realized that i have nothing to say
> "in kind" of the language you use.
Dear Bruno, i failed to acknowledge your kind reply - and others joining in
- for the past month, not because I have been tied up with 'other' WEB
lists, but because I realized that i have nothing to say "in kind" of the
language you use. Not only are the terms unfamiliar (I have to think hard to
p
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
> of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
> of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
>
>
> Let us go slow and deep so that everybody can understand, once and
On 13/08/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
> of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
> of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
Do please remind us. "Off the top of my head", do
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 13 augusti 2007 16:36
Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ämne: Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences
>I don't think Church thesis can be grasped
>conceptually
Le 13-août-07, à 13:29, Kim Jones a écrit :
> where he appears to serve the option of being machine or some other
> order of being. I must confess that I still don't understand the
> ontology of angels as opposed to machines but I'm sure his reply
> contains the reason
Don't worry, I will t
Just to clarify - my question to Bruno was serious. He has mentioned
angels before. I thank him for his considered response which I am
still studying.
The part of his post which prompted my question was:
Also, if we are machine (or just lobian), we can indeed contemplate the
consistency of *
Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit :
>Please, do not tell me that your theories are as well applicable to
faith-items! Next time sopmebody will calculate the enthalpy of the
resurrection.
Frank Tipler calculated the probability of the resurrection in his last book
"The Physics of Christian
Dear John,
Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit :
> Dear Bruno,
> did your scientific emotion just trapped you into showing that your
> theoretical setup makes no sense?
> Angels have NO rational meaning, they are phantsms of a (fairy?)tale
> and if your math-formulation can be applied t
Dear Bruno,
did your scientific emotion just trapped you into showing that your
theoretical setup makes no sense?
Angels have NO rational meaning, they are phantsms of a (fairy?)tale and if
your math-formulation can be applied to a (really) meaningless
phantasy-object, the credibility of it suffers
Le 09-août-07, à 11:22, Kim Jones a écrit :
>
> What is "lobian" apart from la machine, Bruno? Are you referring to
> "angels" here?
>
> Aren't angels machines too?
Angels are not machine. Unless you extend the meaning of machine
'course, but Angels' provability extend the provability of any
26 matches
Mail list logo
