Le 13-juil.-07, à 18:42, David Nyman a écrit :
On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless
you
are not lobian; even lobian non-machine cannot name it).
Perish the thought. But I was referring to 'first person
On 13/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively
exists without being observed.
Observed in what sense? Consciously, by a conscious being? Or decoherred
into a quasi-classical state, as in QM? Reflexive would seem to
Le 12-juil.-07, à 16:27, David Nyman a écrit :
On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal
talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
I tend to agree with what Brent said.
Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing
On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of
the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!)
that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect
of itself.
Yes, and
Le 13-juil.-07, à 17:02, David Nyman a écrit :
But since the One is not
what most people would consider a person (let alone a god), another
term would be better. I wonder what?
I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless you
are not lobian; even lobian
On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless you
are not lobian; even lobian non-machine cannot name it).
Perish the thought. But I was referring to 'first person primacy',
not 'the One'. Maybe something like the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-juil.-07, à 16:27, David Nyman a écrit :
On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal
talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
I tend to agree with what Brent said.
Yes, I ended up
On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal
talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
I tend to agree with what Brent said.
Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing with him myself. But I
nevertheless feel, from their
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence
simpliciter isn't it?
Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively
exists without being observed. The tree falling unobserved in the
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence
simpliciter isn't it?
Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively
exists without being observed.
Observed
David Nyman skrev:
On 11/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(quite contrary to the premise of the everything-list, but one that I'm glad to entertain).
For what it's worth, I really don't see that this is necessarily
contrary to the premise of this list.
On 11/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One exemple of a possible world is that GoL-universe, of which there is a
picture of on the Wikipedia page.
One interesting thing about this particular GoL-universe is that it is
finite, the time goes in a circle in that universe.
On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It
is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than
some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate.
Doesn't this strike you as perhaps consistent
David Nyman wrote:
On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It
is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than
some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate.
Doesn't this strike you
On 10/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I draw a complete blank when I read your use of the word reflexive. What
exactly do you mean? How would you distinguish reflexive from non-reflexive
existence? Do numbers exist reflexively? Do somethiings exist
non-reflexively? What
David Nyman wrote:
On 10/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I draw a complete blank when I read your use of the word reflexive. What
exactly do you mean? How would you distinguish reflexive from non-reflexive
existence? Do numbers exist reflexively? Do somethiings exist
On 11/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence
simpliciter isn't it?
Frankly, I'd be happy to concur. My account was to some extent a
recapitulation of the intuitive process by which I reached a view of
this entailment
Le 06-juil.-07, à 19:24, David Nyman a écrit :
On 06/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure that numbers are real in the sense that I am real,
unless you are talking of the third person I. Then you are as real
as your (unknown) Godel-number.
In general, when people
On 08/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand how you could go automatically from a postulate to
something real. That can happens, but here the comp hyp puts non
trivial restrictions: when that happens, we cannot be sure it happens.
Hmm Well, if you 'postulate'
On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, when people use the word I they refer to their first
person, or to first person plural feature of their physical body. It
is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
first person view (making the
Le 05-juil.-07, à 17:31, David Nyman a écrit :
On 05/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: OK. I would insist that the comp project (extract physics from
comp)
is really just a comp obligation. This is what is supposed to be shown
by the UDA (+ MOVIE-GRAPH). Are you OK with
On 06/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure that numbers are real in the sense that I am real,
unless you are talking of the third person I. Then you are as real
as your (unknown) Godel-number.
In general, when people use the word I they refer to their first
person, or
David Nyman skrev:
You're right, we must distinguish zombies. The kind I have in mind
are the kind that Torgny proposes, where 'everything is the same' as
for a human, except that 'there's nothing it is like' to be such a
person. My key point is that this must become incoherent in the face
On 06/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the GoL-universe will not stop, it will continue for ever. The
rules for this GoL-universe makes it possible to compute all future
situations. It is this that is important. This GoL-universe is not
dependent of the A-Universe.
On 05/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: OK. I would insist that the comp project (extract physics from comp)
is really just a comp obligation. This is what is supposed to be shown
by the UDA (+ MOVIE-GRAPH). Are you OK with this. It *is*
counterintuitive.
DN: I believe so -
Le 02-juil.-07, à 18:12, David Nyman a écrit :
After very kindly concurring with bits of my recent posts, Bruno
nonetheless quite reasonably questioned whether I followed his way of
proceeding. Having read the UDA carefully, I would say that in a
'grandmotherly' way I do, although not
On 03/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: BTW I have discovered that the book edited by Martin Davis The
undecidable has been republished in 2004 by Dover.
DN: I've just ordered it from Amazon.
BM: Many Sc. fiction book go through such experience, and the book Mind's
I (ed. by
After very kindly concurring with bits of my recent posts, Bruno
nonetheless quite reasonably questioned whether I followed his way of
proceeding. Having read the UDA carefully, I would say that in a
'grandmotherly' way I do, although not remotely at his technical
level. But I had been doing
28 matches
Mail list logo
