On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
So is chess real?
No, chess is an agreed-upon set of conventions invented by the human
mind. It didn't exist before people, and it has
You think in terms of computing reality. That is not my point. I mean
computing the salient aspects of reality approximately by living beings.
with the purpose of avoid entropic decay.
For example, a flower must compute when the amount of light is right for
opening the petals, the insect that
Hi John,
On 24 Apr 2015, at 23:57, John Mikes wrote:
Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
Why not 2 + 2 = -175,834? or even '1'? (Without
changing the game).
Without changing
On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Mathematics may be the simplest rules that produce complexity that
can be computed.
... and not computed.
Always remember that the computable is only a tiny part of the
arithmetical reality, which is 99,999..998 % non computable.
Mathematics may be the simplest rules that produce complexity that can be
computed. Reality may be the most complex game possible with the simplest
rules possible, so that some elements can exist and live while responding
to what happens around them.
To live is to compute. If the rules of the
On 4/24/2015 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
Why not 2 + 2 = -175,834? or even '1'? (Without
changing the game).
I deny random, it would eliminate
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 05:23:38PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/24/2015 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
Why not 2 + 2 = -175,834? or even '1'?
Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
Why not 2 + 2 = -175,834? or even '1'? (Without
changing the game).
I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science,
physics, etc.
On 23 Apr 2015, at 03:46, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally
considered to be a property of kicking back - of something
existing independently of us,
On 23 Apr 2015, at 08:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/22/2015 10:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
Both the records and
On 4/22/2015 10:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:38
On 23 Apr 2015, at 08:37, meekerdb wrote:
2+2=1 in mod 3 arithmetic. If you change the game you change what can be
proven. You can't keep the old version and assume its proofs apply to the
new game.
But you haven't changed the game. 2+2=4, still, in normal arithmetic, and
unless you can
On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered to be a
property of kicking back - of something existing independently of us, and not
conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For example. a planet is generally considered
to exist
On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally
considered to be a property of kicking back - of something existing
independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 3:24:22 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote:
On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally
considered to be a property of kicking back - of something existing
independently of us, and not conforming to whatever
On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 3:24:22 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote:
On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered
to be a
property of kicking back - of something existing independently of
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has
any transcendental existence. Both are static, not
meekerdb wrote:
Is mathematics neither invented nor discovered, but evoked?
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/smolin-on-mathematics/
The review by Pigliucci is fascinating. It almost makes me want to buy
Smolin's book -- he seems to be saying much of what I have always
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally
considered to be a property of kicking back - of something existing
independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For
example. a planet is generally considered to exist - we can observer it (or
land things
LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
So is chess real?
No, chess is an agreed-upon set of conventions invented by the human
mind. It didn't exist before people, and it has rules which can be
changed without it kicking back (Castling, the pawn's two-square
On 4/22/2015 6:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally
considered to be
a property of kicking back - of
Really interesting!
Good to find someone that concurs with a one-at-a-time universe. I think this
will emerge as being right, in the end.
Thanks.
Colin
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 23/04/2015 5:36 AM
To: EveryThing everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
which are
brought into existence by exercises of
LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
Both the records and the mathematical objects are human
constructions which are brought into existence by exercises of
human will; neither
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:16 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
Quote:
Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has
any transcendental existence. Both
On 23 April 2015 at 16:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
which are brought into
26 matches
Mail list logo
