James N Rose wrote:

> Joao,
> :-)   of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
> but, he was also unaware of the importance
> that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
> are resident in any information relation situation,
> as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
> and gives validation/meaning to any correspondences
> cited or citable.

I still have no idea of what you are talking about!
Real communication involvements may be very
important, but we are not having one here...

> The 'ideal' as posited - and presumptively relied
> upon by many post facto - is so separated from
> 'being' and the encounters through which both
> being and knowing are instantiated, that it
> would not be unreasonable to populate 'ideal'
> with all sorts of non-possible existentials.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "encounters
through which both being and knowing are instantiated".
You can populate all you want but don't blame it on Plato!
He was rather economical on his encounters...

> You can't tie 'ideal' to the spectrum of alternative
> but satisfactory exemplars, and also say there
> are no requisite relational aspects of the
> properties or qualia resident in the different
> domains.

Sorry. You again seem to be confuse the domain of
your thoughs with the Platonic Realm. There are no
qualia in Platonia so they need not share relational
aspects with any other domains, as you insist...
Forms are Universals not properties.

> Otherwise, you state:
> "The Platonic World only contains true mathematical
> statements, not all the variety that you seem to
> believe it requires. In other words it contains
> presummably less information than most textbooks
> of mathematics which include unproved conjectures etc..."
> So the platonic world cannot/doesnot contain the
> ideal called 'unproved/unprovable conjectures"?

I am sure you will agree that those cannot be ideal
in the platonic world or in any other, if you reflect
for a second. In an ideal world we prove or refute
our conjectures. The fact that we can't do that in our
world should show you how corrupt it is...

> The Platonic World contains -less- information
> than the instantiated world?  Exactly how far
> can you extend that argument?..to the point
> that it contains -no- information of relevance?

I don't think that is the case but it
could be! Have you read Tegmark's paper on the
"Theory of Everything as and Ensemble Theory"?

> It seems that the Platonic World, as intriguing
> and frame-of-reference shifting as it may be --
> getting people to perceive beyond the immediacy
> of encounters and the presumptions of observation --
> is as flighty and weak as the 'real world' it decries.

Not quite! The flightiness is yours and mine. The
Platonic World is One and the Same for Eternity!

> You hold to it because it infers an eternality that
> is very appealing, an opiate to the fear of oblivion
> and total absolute negation of meaning concurrent that
> comes with complete non-existence (even as potentia).

Or with complete Existence and absolute Potentia
and the only  certainty of meaning. You keep trying
to escape into the Hegelian World instead.

> I place it on no such special pedestal.  It is not
> a holy ineffible.  If it can't be correlated with
> being, then there is empty value, use or meaning in
> presumptively claiming there is - and yet  - denying
> processive ways of having such 'correlations'.

Wow! You blew me here...

> I deduce that platonic notions are nice sophomoric
> ramblings, some interesting relations are enunciated,
> but in the long run there are more important realite's.

I am sorry, I have to laugh (:-). I am talking about the
first conception of an integrated system of philosophy
of which we know of and you call it "nice sophomoric
ramblings". I am sure Plato would be delighted...

> James



Joao Pedro Leao  :::  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
VoIP Phone: (617)=384-6679
Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"

Reply via email to