Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 18 Oct 2014, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent. But only if you assume that the Universe is rotating, and

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 20 October 2014 03:54, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:40 PM, LizR wrote: > > >>> Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent. >>> >>> >> But only if you assume that the Universe is rotat

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

JohnKC: do you believe that IF the fixation on our embryonic digital machine of a 'bit' of info can be measured in units of our physical figment system, does INDEED C A US E (create) that information? Otherwise the calculation is not much different from observing a color. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:40 PM, LizR wrote: >>> Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of >>> gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent. >>> >> >> >> But only if you assume that the Universe is rotating, and experimental >> evidence proves that it is not

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> In 1972 Bekenstein discovered that the maximum amount of information you >> can put inside a sphere is proportional not to it's volume as you might >> expect but to it's surface area, and it's 2PI*R*E/h*c*ln2 where R is the >> radius of t

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/18/2014 3:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 October 2014 09:47, John Clark > wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't know and I'm not goi

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 19 October 2014 06:48, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> > Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of >> gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent. >> > > But only if you assume that the Universe is rotat

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 18 October 2014 09:47, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR wrote: > > >> to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't >>> know and I'm not going to pretend that I do. >>> >> >> > I don't see how the big bang could make 2+2=4. Are you saying that i

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 18 October 2014 00:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> >>> > there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would >>> appear any maths that might be involved in physical proc

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

Subject: Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of gravitation > with closed timelike curves, making them consistent. But only if you assume that the Universe

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Gödel shows that there are solution of Einstein's equation of > gravitation with closed timelike curves, making them consistent. > But only if you assume that the Universe is rotating, and experimental evidence proves that it is not. An

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 17 Oct 2014, at 22:47, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR wrote: >> to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't know and I'm not going to pretend that I do. > I don't see how the big bang could make 2+2=4. Are you saying that in another b

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 16 Oct 2014, at 21:43, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> there is no logical reason or empirical evidence to think that the halting oracle exists in the physical world or even in Plato's abstract Platonia. > Time implement the halting oracl

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR wrote: >> to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't >> know and I'm not going to pretend that I do. >> > > > I don't see how the big bang could make 2+2=4. Are you saying that in > another big bang, 2+2=5? > No, but I am saying tha

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: > >> >> > there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would >> appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to >> work OK. >> > > Yes, but to math make t

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 17 October 2014 19:17, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: > >> >> > there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would >> appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to >> work OK. >> > > Yes, but to math make the Big

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: > > > there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would > appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to > work OK. > Yes, but to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't know and

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 17 October 2014 08:43, John Clark wrote: > If the physical world didn't exist and there wasn't 4 of anything and > never has been, would 2+2=4 have any meaning? And even if it did would it > matter, who would be around to understand that meaning? You have always > just assumed that mathematics

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> there is no logical reason or empirical evidence to think that the >> halting oracle exists in the physical world or even in Plato's abstract >> Platonia. >> > > > Time implement the halting oracle. There is a result by Schoenfield to > th

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 14 Oct 2014, at 04:24, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote: > Not all information is computable. If (a_i) = 001000111010111110001001000110110001110111101000... with a_i = 1 if the ith programs (without input) stop, and 0 if not. That the halting ora

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote: > Not all information is computable. If (a_i) = > 001000111010111110001001000110110001110111101000... > with a_i = 1 if the ith programs (without input) stop, and 0 if not. > That the halting oracle information, and it is not computable.

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 13 Oct 2014, at 02:58, John Clark wrote: >For your information I like information because Information is computable. Not all information is computable. If (a_i) = 001000111010111110001001000110110001110111101000... with a_i = 1 if the ith programs (without input) stop,

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

> > > >For your information I like information because Information is computable. >such "non-computable" feature could be "primitive" matter, Not only is there no evidence that non-computable process exist in the physical world there isn't even any reason to think it exists in Plato's abstract

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10 Oct 2014, at 23:13, meekerdb wrote: On 10/10/2014 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2014, at 23:48, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark : On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/10/2014 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2014, at 23:48, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux >: 2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>:

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/10/2014 9:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I can argue that some theory cannot be outranked by an experiment. Two possible examples: the theory that I (you) are conscious here and now (may be hallucinated, just conscious). The other example: elementary arithmetic. It has not changed since t

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 09 Oct 2014, at 23:48, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark : On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works A

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 09 Oct 2014, at 21:03, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness nature to do it for us, but there is ZERO evidence that nature can solve NP complete problems (much less non computable problems!) in

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:36 PM, meekerdb wrote: > NP problems constitute a *class *of problems of arbitrarial large inputs > and everyone of them can be solved in a finite time. > Yes. > When it is said that NP problems can't be solved in polynomial time that > refers to how the time required

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

Le 10 oct. 2014 04:24, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >>> >> And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything to do with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time? >> >> >> > I don't, and I didn't say that. > > > OK, so you

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/9/2014 7:24 PM, John Clark wrote: > NP problem *are* computable. Yes, but not in polynomial time; our brains can't do it, our computers can't do it, and there is not one scrap of evidence that nature can do it either. There seems to be some confusion there. NP problems constitute

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything >> to do with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time? >> > > > I don't, and I didn't say that. > OK, so you don't have any reason to believe that consciousness has some

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/9/2014 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>>: 2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>: On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-09 23:23 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux >> wrote: >> >> > As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works >>> >> >> And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-09 22:02 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > > As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works >> > > And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything to > do with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > As of todays nobody has shown how consciousness works > And what reason do you have to believe that consciousness has anything to do with solving NP complete problems in polynomial time? John K Clark -- You received this message becaus

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-09 21:11 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > >> > Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in >> nature is computable >> > All the great John Clark knows is that as of today nobody anywhere has > presented one scrap of

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in > nature is computable > All the great John Clark knows is that as of today nobody anywhere has presented one scrap of evidence that nature can solve non computable proble

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness nature >> to do it for us, but there is ZERO evidence that nature can solve NP >> complete problems (much less non computable problems!) in polynomial time. >> > > > I agree for the NP

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 09 Oct 2014, at 00:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in nature is computable, that computationalism is true... and the best, he doesn't need to prove it or provide an argument... it is so self evident. I wonder why he didn't get

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 08 Oct 2014, at 23:16, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > the question is not if human can use nature's solution of an NP- hard (or even a non computable analog function), If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness nature to do it for u

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

Waouw, the great John Clark got it all... he knows everything in nature is computable, that computationalism is true... and the best, he doesn't need to prove it or provide an argument... it is so self evident. I wonder why he didn't get the Nobel prize. Le 8 oct. 2014 23:16, "John Clark" a éc

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > the question is not if human can use nature's solution of an NP-hard (or > even a non computable analog function), > If nature can do it then there is no reason humans can't harness nature to do it for us, but there is ZERO evidence that nature can sol

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 02 Oct 2014, at 14:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:25 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> >>> This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following >>> possibilities: >>> >>> -> Molecular interactions enta

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 04 Oct 2014, at 07:03, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must solve a NP-hard problem > To solve it exactly? Obviously exactly. > swarm of ants solves efficaciously NP complet

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 6:03:44 AM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must > solve a NP-hard problem > > > > To solve it exactly? > > > Obviously exactly. > > > swa

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must >> solve a NP-hard problem >> > > > To solve it exactly? > Obviously exactly. > swarm of ants solves efficaciously NP complete problem, like the > traveling salesman p

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature must >>> solve a NP-hard problem to figure out what to do next, >>> >> >> >> Protein folding? >> > > > He uses anyway a bad example, NP-hard problem are computable I nev

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> As I've said no natural phenomenon has ever been found where nature >> must solve a NP-hard problem to figure out what to do next, >> > > > Protein folding? > Although nobody has proven that protein folding is NP-hard I wouldn't be surp

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 02 Oct 2014, at 20:19, meekerdb wrote: On 10/2/2014 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: NP-hard problem are computable... Yes. they just take exponential time to solve. Assuming that P ≠ NP, which is indeed judged very plausible by all experts (but not all) in the field, but remains st

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/2/2014 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: NP-hard problem are computable... Yes. they just take exponential time to solve. Assuming that P ≠ NP, which is indeed judged very plausible by all experts (but not all) in the field, but remains still unproved today. It i

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 02 Oct 2014, at 14:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:25 AM, meekerdb wrote: This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following possibilities: -> Molecular interactions entail an immense computational power; -> P = NP; -> We are constantly winning at q

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 02 Oct 2014, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote: This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following possibilities: -> Molecular interactions entail an immense computational power; -> P = NP; -> We are constantly winning at quantum suicide. Am I missing something? P=/=NP doesn'

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 01 Oct 2014, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Oct 2014, at 12:35, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-10-01 9:09 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes : On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Mar

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:25 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > >> This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following >> possibilities: >> >> -> Molecular interactions entail an immense computational power; >> -> P = NP; >> -> We are constantly winning at quantum suicide. >> Am I missing some

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

This is why I find protein folding intriguing. I see the following possibilities: -> Molecular interactions entail an immense computational power; -> P = NP; -> We are constantly winning at quantum suicide. Am I missing something? P=/=NP doesn't mean that NP problems require "immense comput

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 01 Oct 2014, at 12:35, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2014-10-01 9:09 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes : > >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >> Computat

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 01 Oct 2014, at 12:35, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-10-01 9:09 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes : On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a type information pro

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 01 Oct 2014, at 09:23, Torgny Tholerus wrote: LizR skrev 2014-10-01 01:44: On 1 October 2014 04:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote: Ultrafinitism then: "set of all numbers is finite" and whatever weird logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper limit, and I heard they iss

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 01 Oct 2014, at 09:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a type information processing machine, and it postulates that thin

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a type information processing machine, and it postulates that thinking is a form of computing. But you can't have a br

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 30 Sep 2014, at 04:05, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:45:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > >I introduced the term "urstuff" as a way of referr

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 30 Sep 2014, at 02:19, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:45:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote: I introduced the term "urstuff" as a way of referring to what is ontologically real. "primitive urstuff" is a tautology, of cou

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-01 9:09 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes : > > > On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a >> type information processing machine, and it postulates that th

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

LizR skrev 2014-10-01 01:44: On 1 October 2014 04:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>> wrote: Ultrafinitism then: "set of all numbers is finite" and whatever weird logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper limit, and I heard they issue fines a

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

> On 30 Sep 2014, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >> Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a >>> >> type information processing machine, and it postulates that thinking is >>> >> a form of computing.

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 1 October 2014 04:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > Ultrafinitism then: "set of all numbers is finite" and whatever weird > logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper limit, and I heard > they issue fines and tickets for anybody who states a bigger number. > > Like "the bigge

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a computer, a > type information processing machine, and it postulates that thinking is a > form of computing. But you can't have a brain or a computer or a machine of > any sort with

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Still don't get relation between comp and resolution of finite, infinite > controversy; especially given "..." attribute today of supposedly finite > comp. > > And I'm going to stay quite obtuse (at lea

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:45:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > > >I introduced the term "urstuff" as a way of referring to what is > > >ontologically real. "primitive u

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:45:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > >I introduced the term "urstuff" as a way of referring to what is > >ontologically real. "primitive urstuff" is a tautology, of course, as > >urstuff is primitive by defini

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

"Yes but then what, does physics reduce to mathematics or does mathematics reduce to physics?" ...that's the $64000 question that quite a few people on this list are decided on in different ways. For example, if physics reduces to maths, then it isn't legitimate to say that a theory of quantum gr

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Bit the *way* you are stuck in step 3 makes me think that you have your > religion about all this > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. >> Not

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 29 Sep 2014, at 00:49, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It seems to me that the MGA makes the robust/non-robustness irrelevant. What creates ambiguity is to not know where somebody, from you to everybody on the list here, is

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:35:44PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Sep 2014, at 15:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Co

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 06:46:24PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >Additionally, in a robust universe, the Church-Turing thesis tells us > >that physics we supervene on must be emergent from the properties of > >universal systems (Bruno's reversal result). Thus the matter we > >supervene > >on c

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:35:44PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 27 Sep 2014, at 15:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > > >On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish > > wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > >wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 27,

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > It seems to me that the MGA makes the robust/non-robustness irrelevant. What creates ambiguity is to not know where somebody, from you to everybody on the list here, is talking from. I know the system in place is to relate by referr

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 28 Sep 2014, at 01:39, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:43:56PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, R

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 27 Sep 2014, at 15:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Russell Standish > > wrote: > > So I don't see: robust universe =>

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 27 Sep 2014, at 08:40, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 06:49:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: We agree, but after the reversal "materialism" has not the same meaning than before the reversal, and I agree with your use, as it is coherent with comp, but it can be misleading

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 27 Sep 2014, at 00:13, meekerdb wrote: On 9/26/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Sep 2014, at 09:18, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:05:43PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2014 6:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Telmo Menezes mailto:

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 26 Sep 2014, at 19:06, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Computationalism involves the notion of computation Obviously, otherwise it would be a very misleading name. Then don't equate computationalism and materialism. The second term does not

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 26 Sep 2014, at 10:14, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 03:17:07AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: Well done for being obtuse! The platonically malleable urstuff is usually taken to be integer arithmetic, a

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 25 Sep 2014, at 20:41, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote: > Your clearly ignore the entire field of philosophy of mind. You almost make that sound like a bad thing. You might get help by reading some book, like Kim on supervenience, or Tye's book on "8 probl

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:43:56PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote: > > > > On S

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:43:56PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Russell Standish > > > > > wrote: > > > > >

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Russell Standish > > > wrote: > > > > So I don't see: robust universe => all integers exist > > Nor do I. But then that is the

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 27 September 2014 20:40, Kim Jones wrote: > > On 27 Sep 2014, at 4:29 pm, Russell Standish > wrote: > > >> So I don't see: robust universe => all integers exist > > > > Nor do I. But then that is the exact inverse of what I stated: the > > arithmetic reality assumption in COMP entails a robus

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 27 Sep 2014, at 4:29 pm, Russell Standish wrote: >> So I don't see: robust universe => all integers exist > > Nor do I. But then that is the exact inverse of what I stated: the > arithmetic reality assumption in COMP entails a robust reality (one in > which the UD runs to completion). > Wh

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 06:49:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > We agree, but after the reversal "materialism" has not the same > meaning than before the reversal, and I agree with your use, as it > is coherent with comp, but it can be misleading for those who miss > it, or does not really t

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:56:39PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Russell Standish < > > li...@hpcoders.com.au

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:09:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/26/2014 1:14 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > > > >Additionally, in a robust universe, the Church-Turing thesis tells us > >that physics we supervene on must be emergent from the properties of > >universal systems (Bruno's reversal resul

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:56:39PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Russell Standish < > li...@hpcoders.com.au> Sufficiency is a loaded term. It is better to stick with supervenience. > > > is s

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:56:39PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > > > > We don't, if by "concrete" you mean what Bruno means by it. > > > > > What are they and how do we avoid attributing originality to > > > all your do

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 9/26/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Sep 2014, at 09:18, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:05:43PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2014 6:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: John argue

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 25 Sep 2014, at 09:18, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:05:43PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2014 6:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: John argues that consciousness has real world consequenc

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 9/26/2014 4:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:07 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/25/2014 10:09 AM, John

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 25 Sep 2014, at 04:05, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2014 6:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: >>> John argues that consciousness has real world consequences in terms of being evolutionary selected >> Either that or consciousness is the side ef

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Computationalism involves the notion of computation > Obviously, otherwise it would be a very misleading name. > It has nothing to do with any notion of matter whatsoever. > Computationalism is the theory that the human brain is a comp

<    1   2   3   4   >