Hal Finney wrote:
No doubt this is true. But there are still two somewhat-related problems.
One is, you can go back in time to the first replicator on earth, and
think of its evolution over the ages as a learning process. During this
time it learned this intuitive physics, i.e. mathematics and
Hi Lee,
Thanks for answering all my mails, but I see you send on the list only
the one where you disagree. Have you done this purposefully? Can I
quote some piece of the mail you did not send on the list? I will
answer asap.
Also, for this one, I did not intend to insult you. Sorry if it
Le 27-juil.-05, à 00:12, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit :
I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the
following:
Thanks for trying to reconciliate us :)
Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be
Hal wrote
Brent Meeker wrote:
In practice we use coherence with other theories to guide out choice. With
that kind of constraint we may have trouble finding even one candidate
theory.
Well, in principle there still should be an infinite number of theories,
starting with the data is
Lee Corbin writes:
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief among *all* people up until
they take their first fatal dive into a philosophy book
is that there is an ordinary three-dimensional world that
we are all running around in.
(Yes---one
Hi Stephen,
I merely wish to comprehend the ideas of those that take a Pythagorean
approach to mathematics; e.g. that Mathematics is more real than the
physical world - All is number.
One thing that I have learned in my study of philosophy is that no
single finite model of reality can be
Le 23-juil.-05, à 08:14, Hal Finney a écrit :
My current view is a little different, which is that all of the
equations
fly. Each one does come to life but each is in its own universe,
so we can't see the result. But they are all just as real as our own.
In fact one of the equations might
Le 26-juil.-05, à 02:17, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
Le 26-juil.-05, à 04:06, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Well, all that I ask is that the *basics* be kept firmly in mind
while we gingerly probe forward.
The basics (basic epistemology, that is) include
1. the map is not the territory, and perception is not reality
This is ambiguous. A trivial
Bruno writes
Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
agree---this is *very* simple
I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the following:
Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be able to perceive and
understand 'more', but at ANY point of time the above limitation
holds). I think
the strange terms that we
use. ;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Aditya Varun Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
I think a reconciliation
Stephen Paul King wrote:
BTW, Scott Aaronson has a nice paper on the P=NP problem that is found here:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf
That describes different proposals for physical mechanisms for efficiently
solving NP-complete problems: things like quantum computing
Brent Meeker wrote:
[Hal Finney wrote:]
When you observe evidence and construct your models, you need some
basis for choosing one model over another. In general, you can create
an infinite number of possible models to match any finite amount of
evidence. It's even worse when you
Hal Finney wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
[Hal Finney wrote:]
When you observe evidence and construct your models, you need some
basis for choosing one model over another. In general, you can create
an infinite number of possible models to match any finite amount of
evidence. It's even worse
Aditya writes
Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' understanding of our sensory perceptions.
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief among *all* people up until
they take their first fatal dive into
Hal writes
I'd say they are *less* than models of reality. They are just consistency
conditions on our models of reality. They are attempts to avoid talking
nonsense. But note that not too long ago all the weirdness of quantum
mechanics and relativity would have been regarded as
relation do mathematical models have with reality?
Aditya writes
Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' understanding of our sensory perceptions.
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief among *all
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:17:37PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
Aditya writes
Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' understanding of our sensory perceptions.
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief
Hi Hal,
Here is Scott's responce.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Scott Aaronson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
Hi Stephen,
It's
Russell writes
Sadly, your wish for the common sense understanding of reality to hold
will be thwarted - the more one thinks about such things, the less
coherent a concept it becomes.
Well, all that I ask is that the *basics* be kept firmly in mind
while we gingerly probe forward.
The basics
and am having a
hardtime finding the middle ground. ;-)
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Cc: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: RE: what relation do mathematical
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 07:06:50PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
For most of us in this list, the 3+1 dimensional spacetime we inhabit,
with its stars and galaxies etc is an appearance, phenomena emerging
out of constraints imposed by the process of observation.
Right there is the problem.
Greetings,
Here's my Rupee 1 on the connection between abstract models and reality;
Although it is ofcourse debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' understanding of our sensory perceptions. Thus the notion
of (our) reality depends on:
1. The nature of mind
Let's assume
Brent Meeker writes:
Here's my $0.02. We can only base our knowledge on our experience
and we don't experience *reality*, we just have certain
experiences and we create a model that describes them and
predicts them. Using this model to predict or describe usually
involves some calculations
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 06:09:39PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On that note I'm not sure Wheeler's description is the same. In my idea of
the calculus all there is is the sheets of paper. There are no symbols (no
intrinsic representation). There are intrinsic rules of formation and
obtain in the first place.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Aditya Varun Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
Greetings,
Here's my Rupee 1
Forwarded on behalf of Brent Meeker:
On 24-Jul-05, you wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Here's my $0.02. We can only base our knowledge on our experience
and we don't experience *reality*, we just have certain
experiences and we create a model that describes them and
predicts them. Using
Colin Hales writes:
The idea brings with it one unique aspect: none of the calculii we
hold so dear, that are so wonderful to play with, so poweful in their
predictive nature in certain contexts, are ever reified. None of them
actually truly capture reality in any way. They only appear to in
Hal Finney writes:
: Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot
: squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square
: a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the
: universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of
Hi Brent,
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
On 22-Jul-05,Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Ok, I am rapidly loosing
On 23-Jul-05, you wrote:
Hi Brent,
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:31 PMMichael Godfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
On 22
Hi Brent,
Ok, I am rapidly loosing the connection that abstract models have with
the physical world, at least in the case of computations. If there is no
constraint on what we can conjecture, other than what is required by one's
choice of logic and set theory, what relation do mathematical
33 matches
Mail list logo
