fishfry

Didn't I ask you about this several posts ago? Ok, Euclid's line. Ok so you are doing classical Euclidean geometry (not modern Euclidean geometry, ple...

Tegmark's trolling. And the world is mathematical to us just as it's sound to a bat. The world does whatever it's doing. We do the math. The world is ...

Searle. Bit flipping lacks intentionality. Is your web browser passing judgment on the opinions you post to this site? Does Ms. Pac-Man experience ple...

So you DO have axioms :-) It works for me, as an objection to the VR aspect of the simulation argument. Even if I'm living in a realistic VR, that doe...

I'm afraid I don't know what a line is, absent the real numbers, unless you mean the original line of Euclid, "A line is breadthless length." I'm not ...

Yes ok, but that supports the possibility that in the future, our current preoccupation with "mind as computer" will look as dated as "mind as waterwo...

I don't think you and I are making progress. I have agreed repeatedly that we can't "count all the natural numbers backwards" since an infinite sequen...

Any initial step necessarily leaps over all but finitely elements of the sequence. Same reason that any neighborhood of the limit of a sequence contai...

Given P2, what is the first natural number not recited? I seem to remember having asked you this several times already. What is the first number not r...

But you are agreeing with me. We have made zero progress in simulating or implementing consciousness. Yes, the humans are the weak point in the Turing...

I've seen the argument -- perhaps this wasn't in the original Bostrom paper, I don't recall -- that we should consider Pong, the original video game. ...

Ok. We are ALL of whatever our latest technology is. Well ... maybe so. Something to be said for that. Ok. But I'm arguing that the simulation theory,...

Likewise. But you are the one saying that you only have rationals. In standard set theory, the only thing that sets can contain is other sets. We can ...

You lost me on the fetish bit. — fishfry I think we're at the end here. Nice chatting with you.

It's never been clear to me whether Bostrom himself makes this distinction. If the point is merely that we're being fooled by the simulator, this is j...

No worries. Like a certain Supreme court justice, I am not a biologist. Ok. I figured that out, just couldn't remember anything about a horse. I agree...

I'm not missing your point, I'm challenging it. The length of your rational intervals is zero. That causes a problem for your argument. The length of ...

Consciousness could perfectly well be a physical process, but not computable. So, what kind of process is physical but not computable? A task for some...

This was in response to your saying, "And thirdly, because you pretend that government is responsible for everything it cannot possibly control." You ...

You've been perfectly clear, and I've clearly responded to your points several times already. I have never made any such statement. I've repeatedly ch...

Ok fair enough. I think of power as computability but perhaps I could have been more clear.No. I'm I doubt that consciousness is computable, nor is th...

I would not say vehemently, it's not a core concern of mine. But these are legal loans that students signed for. But the one doesn't follow from the o...

Point being that Biden's debt "forgiveness" is illegal. My wish? My wish is for the president to follow the law. Well that hasn't happened since befor...

Yay! Thanks. I have no problem with intervals. But intervals of rationals make terrible continua. By this I take you to mean the set of some but not a...

Yes that's true. There's a set of cardinality 27. One such is the set {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 26}. There are others, of course. \aleph_{26} is vastly larger...

You tagged three people before that quote so I'm not sure if this is for me. But I did say I wasn't sure I understood the staircase problem so if I've...

I have explained this repeatedly. If you have the sequence 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... on the number line, the points go right to left. If you start at 0, t...

@"keystone", One more thought that occurred to me, and I'm putting it in a separate post because it's short, and important. Consider one of your ratio...

I would prefer if Congress would pass a law to have high income earners fund college costs. That at least would have the virtue of being legal. Ok, so...

But you haven't got a continuum if your intervals contain only rational numbers How can you say you exclude the real numbers, then write down an inter...

Right. Constructivism is purely technical. Intuitionism is constructivism plus some kind of psychological motive or mystic woo. That's my understandin...

That's my point. We hated the Soviets. The brave Russian people overthrew the wicked Soviets. Did we say, "Yay brave Russian people, let's be friend n...

If you play the recording in reverse, the very first movement of the tape or recording, no matter how small, must necessarily jump over all but finite...

Not sure what you mean by potential cardinality. Point being that you get no increase in computational power from parallelization. No function is comp...

That's exactly what's happening. Over $500 billion according to the Wharton School of Economics. $559 billion transferred from student borrowers to th...

Ok fine. You convinced me. Let's transfer the legally contracted debt of people who signed for it, to those who never took out that debt, never saw an...

5 is a natural number in the Peano axioms. Does \sqrt 5 have meaning? No. You have to extend to a larger number system. \sqrt \omega has no meaning in...

Thanks, I'll check that out. Perhaps it will give me insight into what @"Michael" means by metaphysically impossible.

Um ... ok ... I think ... Ok whatever. You accept some rational numbers. Not much of a continuum you have there. You understand that, right? There's n...

Other way 'round I think. Clinton and the neoliberals did spread prosperity around the world, at the expense of the manufacturing base of America. The...

I believe you have agreed with me. No, once again you recited the natural numbers in ascending order. Normalizing the 60 to 1 for simplicity, you iter...

I see that I misunderstood your idea. You are counting time backward. Ok I'll respond to that. But just wondering, when you realized I misunderstood y...

Glad to hear that. Could be. Truth be told I got lost in the OP involving many non-relevant fairy tale elements and probably don't even understand wha...

I already agreed with this, because limit ordinals do not have immediate predecessors. If you would engage in your private time with the 60 second puz...

Name the first one that's not. It's a trivial exercise to identify the exact time at which each natural number is spoken. "1" is spoken at 60, "2" at ...

You're right that we can't "name all the numbers" going backward. but that's obvious. There's no largest number and limit ordinals don't have immediat...

Did you learn mathematical induction in school? Please review that. Please take the time to understand the argument I made. Under the premises of the ...

Thanks much.

I go 1 at 60, 2 at 30, etc. Name the first number that I fail to count Third time I'm asking you the question. (At ever decreasing intervals of time!)...

Did I not move you, surprise you, convince you, that if you count 1, 2, 3, ... successively halving the time intervals, that you will indeed count eve...