Re: UDA Step 7

[Tom Caylor]

On Apr 3, 3:12 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Günther,
>
> Le 02-avr.-08, à 20:16, Günther Greindl a écrit :
>
>
>
> > Dear Bruno,
>
> >> Yes. The comp "intelligible matter" hypostases give the modal logic
> >> corresponding to quantum logic, except that I loose the necessitation
> >> rule.
> >> The significance of this remains to be seen of course.
>
> > Ok I get it. I will reread your papers :-) (too much new stuff in one
> > reading)
>
> I am aware. Sorry. I will perhaps explain a bit more the
> "methodological problem" is an answer to a post by Tom.
> Soon or later.
>

Bruno,
I think you might be referring to me.  In either case, I apologize for
not participating in a while.  I have been busy with other priorities,
even other pass times.  I have a two-fold interest in your UDA, and in
the Everything List in general.  One is the math, having a M.S. in
math and doing it everyday on my job.  The other interest is in
philosophy and theology.  So I am especially interested in the
intersection of the two.  It has been a while since I've picked up
Cutland's introductory book on Recursion Theory.  I have to be honest
and say that my motivation in studying your UDA is (I'll probably word
this wrong in my haste) either to reconfirm in another instance that
trying to figure out everything in a reductionistic sense based on
math and logic (the most accurate tools of reductionism) leads to
futility (no conclusion), or it shows that there must be a
transcendent basis for everything, or both.  Another point connected
to this that I have argued is that the inescability of the mind-body
problem points to the transcendent basis having a personal (mind)
aspect at the core.

Just an administrative note: To see my oldest posts, from 2006, you
have to search for [EMAIL PROTECTED] because I changed email
addresses and re-registered as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Caylor) after
that.

By the way, near the end of one of our discussions on Plonitus'
hypostases, you said that what I was saying was the same thing as
Augustine.  I just wanted to let you know that I didn't get it from
Augustine, I somehow thought it up myself.  Smells a little like
truth, it seems to be able to be seen independently from different
perspectives (invariance).  There's something mystical going on
here. ;)

Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---