Return to the Main Page
	Please feel free to Add to Guest Book
	all submissions to this list are moderated

	entries Search
20 of 25 : view page 2 1

Name:	Isperih Karaivanov    E-Mail:
Comment:	25   Thursday March 10, 2011 - 04:28am   Hey there Paul! Many thanks for all the hours of intriguing reading I've had with your works so far. Been following your stuff ever since I run into one of your older papers on MLU. I actually have some of questions in store for you, which (especially after reading "Can you retroactively put yourself in a computer simulation?") I feel you're just the kind of person who can freely tackle these more abstract ideas. By the way I have no clue how you did muster the patience to write and proof-read a paper like that - summarizing this should be used as an exam in philosophy class :) Anyway, I'll be sending you something on your e-mail shortly :) Be well!
Name:	Darla    E-Mail:
Comment:	24   Friday January 14, 2011 - 10:20pm   You are a remarkable thinker with a brilliant mind. Of course you know, that I know, you are. :-)
Name:	Viraldi    E-Mail:
Comment:	23   Saturday December 11, 2010 - 10:54am   Ill think about reading your work soon.
Name:	MycroftH    E-Mail:
City:	Singapore,  Singapore
Via:	MachinesLikeUs.com
	22   Saturday December 5, 2009 - 09:37am   Thanks, Paul - This is enough reading (and thinking) matter for the next weeks... a wonderful minimalistic website.
Name:	Xavier    E-Mail:
City:	Spain
Comment:	21   Saturday September 19, 2009 - 07:56pm   Hi Paul. In your article about Penrose's Proof there is an error in you algorithm in my opinion. When you say "To indicate that Cq(n) will not halt, A(q,n) will output '1'. A(q,n) must never output '1' unless it has determined that Cq(n) will not halt. A(q,n) is not required to halt to make an output." you missed that the algorithm have to output something if condition is not satisfied. You can decide the output you prefer but you have to select something. Is like programing in any programming language: IF condition THEN output 1 ELSE output 2 If not your sintax will be invalid and will NOT be an algorithm. Of course you can write this sentence in programming language: IF condition THEN output 1 But then, after having 1 or not as outpt the algorithm "stops" or halt always! Then, whats's happening to your algorithm?. It's not possble to output 1 and keep running forever. Or if you want it will be runing forever, as your first option, then your algorithm will be IF condition THEN output 1 LOOP FOREVER Then, if this is your choice, your algorithm can't comunicate to us if A(r,1)or Cr(1) will halt or not. As far as we don't use halting to know if Cq(n) halts or not in A(q,n) algorithm, in the case that A(r,1) don't halt - as you programmed it - you never know if Cr(1) halts or not. While A(r,1) is computing, you will be woundering if A(r,1) halts or not with no answer, the algorithm can't DECIDE and is not valid to decide all answers you ask to it. The Halting problem is a well know theorem developed by Turing. If you were right I guess you demonstrated Turing were wrong. And as far I know Turing's teorem have not been refutated. Sincerely
Name:	ajay    E-Mail:
City:	hyderabad, A
Via:	lesswrong
Comment:	20   Wednesday July 8, 2009 - 06:12pm   Very good and breathtaking. Indeed is vast amount of knowledge that you're sharing. Keep up the good work. May God give u peace !!!! :))
Name:	Kenneth    E-Mail:
Via:	search engine
Comment:	19   Saturday June 20, 2009 - 10:34pm   An excellent site; some of the most intelligent stuff I've ever read on the internet. One question that occurred to me reading all this comes from your complaint that God is described as having 'magical powers' in the 'There is no God' article. The suggestion seems to be that God is improbable because of his 'magical powers', but what does this really mean? In order to do this kind of powerful conceptual work, the notion of what is 'magic' would have to be fairly profound. Don't get me wrong; I don't 'believe in magic', I'm suggesting that there isn't any such meaningful notion to believe in, or disbelieve in. The notion of the 'magical' actually seems very similar to the notion of the 'supernatural' - meaningless. What this means, I think, is that God cannot be criticized on this basis because it isn't a 'basis' at all, just a buzzword. I know that many theists might claim that God is magic, (though none I have heard, personally) but the Princple of Charity compells us to look past this in the interests of debate rather than exploit it. Complaining that God is magical can only work if being magical is an essential part of the definition rather than just an unfortunate entanglement. In short, the 'magic' complaint seems to fall prey to your own excellent ananlysis of the 'supernatural' in your essay 'Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea'. If it is meaningless to call something 'supernatural', isn't it similarly meaningless to call it 'magical'? And if so, then being 'magical' cannot be used to defend, nor attack, a claim. Whether we belive or disbelive in God, or consider it probable or improbable, vaugue notions like whether God is 'magical' seem irrelevant.
Name:	Luke
Comment:	18   Friday June 12, 2009 - 01:50pm   Awesome articles. Thank you for putting in so much work and providing knowledge for free!
Name:	Blanche41
City:	USA
Comment:	17   Wednesday April 1, 2009 - 04:59am   I find you brilliant.
Name:	Lewis
City:	UK
Via:	Forum
Comment:	16   Wednesday March 18, 2009 - 09:13am   Thanks. Your articles are fascinating! After reading your god is not above/did not create logic and agreeing, I thought I'd suggest the idea that god were logic. This satisfies the ideas that the universe came into existence on it's own via a mechanism we don't yet understand, and that god was responsible.
Name:	Shibl Mourad    E-Mail:
City:	Montreal, Quebec Canada
Comment:	15   Tuesday April 29, 2008 - 00:15am   Hi Paul, In "Against the Idea that Religious Belief is Needed to Have Ethics" you deconstruct the question "how atheists can have ethics" to show that it includes many fallacies. I propose a framing of ethics that can resist your deconstruction :) One of the big problems of society is demonstrated by the Prisoner's Dilemma. In some cases rational actions of individuals leads to inferior results than irrational actions. In other words it is in the interest of all of us if we acted irrationally in certain specific ways. These irrational-but-useful codes of behavior are what we call ethics. Note that the content of the code depends of the conditions of the environment and the objectives of individuals. So if individuals value the taste of Caviar then an ethical code would be not to fish for young Sturgeon. How can a society achieve this irrational behaviour? Either by creating punishment for it, but this require a level of organization and has a high cost. Or by creating irrational beliefs that are transmitted across generations that make a rational evaluation of the situation when combined with irrational beliefs lead to the desired conduct. (I do not want to stricken by thunder hence I do not fish for young Sturgeon) So now I can ask the question again: How can a society without irrational beliefs and the resources for law enforcement escape the Tragedy of the Commons?
Name:	Shibl Mourad    E-Mail:
City:	montreal, quebec canada
Via:	search engine
Comment:	14   Monday April 28, 2008 - 07:09pm   In your article "Can God Exist Outside Space-Time?" you suggest that since causality exists in time we can not say that God caused the Universe to exist if he is outside Space-Time. One scenario where this would be possible is if God exists in another universe that has its own space-time. In that universe he could have created our Universe including our Space-Time.
Name:	Vladimir
Comment:	13   Thursday June 14, 2007 - 01:04am   "The claims simultaneously give God huge powers that transcend logic while removing him to the realm of fiction, or at best the realm of unsupported hypothesis" What if God is so powerful that His power would not be diminished by existing only as a hypothesis and not in reality?
Name:	Alex Przybyl    E-Mail:
City:	hamburg, NY united states
Via:	search engine
Comment:	12   Thursday October 26, 2006 - 05:06pm   well. . . why must god be above logic? A claim like that truely is ilogical... god didnt "creat" logic. . logic exists because god exists. Logic is an eternal truth that can't be given a start and end point. (just like god (eternal)) to say that god is above logic is like saying that a human has full control over their DNA. DNA is an unchangable part of a human...if the dna is changed then a different human is created. Just as if god were to change logic he would no longer be god. he would be something else that we as humans could not relate to due to our dependance on one god with one standard for logic. therefor god is not above logic. But instead his existance is prooved by logic.
Name:	Nat Napoletano    E-Mail:
Company:	Lockheed Martin
City:	Akron, OH USA
Comment:	11   Friday October 13, 2006 - 05:11pm   Hi Paul, Nice summary of the state of epistemology. Thank you for all of your hard work and generosity. -Nat
Name:	Name*
Comment:	10   Thursday May 11, 2006 - 01:21pm   Hi there, interesting site. Is this what you are suggestion with your evolution thingie? Let A be an alphabet of instructions. Let E be a set of fitness functions. Let B be an alphabet of machine instructions for a virtual machine. Let a be an element in A, and b an element in B. Let F be a bijective map from A to B. b = F(A) = xi*a (mod /A/), where xi is random number. 1. To generate a compiler machine, generate a set X of random numbers xi...xn where n equals the cardinality of A. Do this any times. 2. For each compiler machine, change a random xi to a random number. 3.1. Select a random e from E. 3.2. Generate a set S of random strings from the alphabet A. 3.3. For each string in S, copy x times and change a random element in each string. This create a new set Z. 3.4. do for each string z in Z, for each element c in z. F(c)i. This generates a set of output strings with the alphabet B of the same length as the input strings. Run output string on the virtual machine, and run result through the fitness function e. etc...
Name:	zak³ady bukmacherskie    E-Mail:
Comment:	09   Wednesday September 7, 2005 - 11:55am   Very interesting site :)
Name:	mike (aintbelieving)    E-Mail:
Company:	Free Thinkers Association
Club:	Free Thinkers
Via:	hari told me
Comment:	08   Thursday June 30, 2005 - 03:15am   good reading paul! i hope you will consider writting for Free Thinkers Association. we are not ready to launch as you will see. i am still 'collecting' content. i hope you will give me your honest opinion(s). thanks
Name:	Flug Düsseldorf    E-Mail:
City:	Düsseldorf
Comment:	07   Friday June 10, 2005 - 04:44pm   Thanks
Name:	Steam Engine
Comment:	06   Sunday May 15, 2005 - 07:02am   Super Site:-)

20 of 25 : view page 2 1

VizBook v2.2 copyright