Hi John,

Le 25-janv.-06, à 04:07, John M a écrit :

I can't wait for your writing about Plotinus I could
not read even about him any reasonable text.

I can understand. Somehow, like the words "God" and "theology", Plotinus has been in part appropriated by the Christians. For example in the little popular book on Plato, Plotinus is sum up in three sentences saying that Plotinus was the founder of Neoplatonism (actually Plotinus was just saying that he was a Platonist and "neo" is just used by historians for its period: 200-300 century) and that it combines Plato's philosophy with a heightened emphasis on God and Salvation, and that the Enneads of Plotinus foreshadowed the great Augustinian Synthesis of Plato and Christianity. This is somehow correct but put the fundamental differences between Plotinus and the Christians under the rug. I bought and read the penguin Plotinus book. It is an abridged version of the whole Enneads of Plotinus. I first realised the missing of its proof of the "immortality of the soul", a quite important thread of the Everything List, then I realised the missing of its treatise on Number, which is the interface with comp and with the Pythagorean and with the list. What is striking is that it gives the whole Fifth Ennead (the main one which introduces the basic metaphysics/theology), except for one chapter, the one which, according to another commentator, is the more in opposition with Aristotle and the Christians. Indeed for the Christian God, or the ultimate TOE's object if you want, is a thinker. With Plotinus there is a second God, and a third, and Plotinus insists quite a lot that the first God cannot be a thinker, only the second and a part of the third.

My problem now is that I am not sure I should use Plotinus to explain G and G*, or to use G and G* to explain Plotinus. I make an attempt below. It is clear that seeing the relationship between both can help to understand the main fundamental differences between Plato and Aristotle, and how they will evolve toward very different view of the "Everything". To put it roughly, with Plato-Plotinus: matter is secondary and mind is primary, or even: physics is secondary and math is primary. With Aristotle and the Christians it will be the inverse, leading to some schizo ontology: a willing God related to a material non thinking naturalist framework, a sort of super mind-body problem.

What you write about 'experimentally testable" (I am
not a Popperian) ...

*as* a communicating scientist, I am. But during the research phases I am not.

... raises the question: is it not some
misunderstood - primitive observation with those
restricted model-based instruments we use and some
(similarly narrow-vision) sweated out explanation in
our math based "science"?

Here I do have a problem with you. I agree so much with you on this point that it is my basic starting point. But then I use our terrestrial math to build upon that idea, at some higher level. This is something made possible by the discovery of (modern) logic and its many logics.

We think in figments, observe and explain figments,
built a world of science on figments and call the
errors a paradox, a given, an axiom, chaos, or just an

... if not a universe or a multiverse. Certainly so with comp, and with "we" being the lobian entitities.

This is why I picked up the expression "perception of
reality". I rather spend my available time in some
accepted ignorance and leave mosre smarts to the
grandkids of our grandkids.
I definitely do not base contemporary thinking on
ideas generated upon a cognitive epistemic inventory
of millennia ago, not even 50 years ago. We learn and
should not dismiss it. I am younger now at 84 than a
graduate student who knows all the obsolete wisdom.

I like to find or intuit what is common between us now and us millennia ago. With comp (or much weaker) there is something common to any self-observing honest entity, and which is beyond time and space: indeed time and space *appears* from that.

That is what the UDA should convey in some intelligible way. And that is what G and G* can mathematically describe, i.e. the discourse(s) of the self-observing honest entity.

Let me describe an audacious, probably, arithmetical (even Pythagorean, I think) interpretation of Plotinus' hypostases. The word "hypostase" is a nice word to avoid the word "god" or "gods" in serious talk, I mean in "rational theology". "hypostase(s)" means basic(s) or fundamental(s).

Plotinus introduces three primary "divine" hypostases: the One, the (divine) Intellect, the All-souls, or Soul. He talks also about a non divine terrestrial intellect, which can participate in discursive reasoning and get opinions. The One is arguably Plato's Good from the Parmenides.

Now Godel's theorem has shown that for any proving machine (which will play the role of the discursive terrestrial intellect) there is an unavoidable gap between "Truth on the machine" and "Truth provable by the machine on the machine". At the elementary mathematical propositional level, the "provability of p" (Bp) obeys to the modal logic G, as far as we ask the machine to be able to justify its opinion, and obeys to G*, as far as we only ask the machine to intuit in some way or another the true proposition, including the non-provable one.

There is still a problem to get Plotinus Hypostases from that, which is that the notion of truth is not definable in the language of the Loebian entity (Tarski theorem). But there is a trick which is due also to Tarski, and whixh consist to define the truth of some sentence directly by the proposition itself: like in saying that the string "the snow is wite" denote a truth because actually the snow is white. More generally "p" is true when p. Now Plotinus' three primary hypostases can be described in the following way:

Bp & p

You recognize perhaps my "theaetetical variants" in the last two lines, as you will recognize them in the "secondary hypostases" (although Plotinus would not express it like that). Note that what is different is the presence of the "indeterminate factor Dp (diamond p):

Bp & Dp
Bp & Dp & p

Now, it is the gap between G and G* which makes all those "person point of views" in general differents. They define different logics. And not only that: each hypostases can be seen through G* or through G. That is, from the true and provable respective points of view. So there is two logics per hypostase, the terrestrial (G) and the divine (G*). In the detail: the "truth" hypostasis, represented by p and which plays the role of the unameable One (Plato's Good), is not sensible to the gap between G and G*, given that it is independent of the Intellect (Platonism). You got the Theaetetus from G. And what I learned in Plotinus, is that you get the "Parmenides" from G*. The second hypostase, Bp, which plays the role of the intellect, will split into a terrestrial and celestial version. Indeed it is the one responsible for the gap between G and G* (by Godel, Lob, Solovay theorem). The intellect is Bp as seen by G*. It is the truth ON the entity. The third hypostase is a combination of the two preceding one. Bp & p. At the terrestrial (provable) level it corresponds to the main definition of knowledge by Theaetetus. At the celestial (level) it corresponds to the same thing! That is, the knower is a fixed point of the Earth-Heaven transformation (the function SOL programmed in Lisp here:
for those who want play with it). The second hypostase is the first person, it does not distinguish truth and provability. The secondary hypostase, Bp & Dp, corresponds to some first plural person point of view, with explicit interrogation on others and on indetermination/matter, captured by the possibility (consistency) modal connector Dp (which is just ~B~p). G and G* distinguish them. The same for Bp & Dp & p. You see that G and G* does not only distinguish the loebian logics given by Bp & Dp and Bp & Dp & p. But G and G* describe for each such nuances (hypostases) two logics, again a terrestrial and a celestial. Than, Plotinus' Matter, despite his contempt for it, and despite the fact his theory is mainly an abstraction of Aristotle matter theory (minus Aristotle reification of particulars) appears in the celestial (G*, truth) level of last three hypostases, and indeed it is there that the quantum logics appear. Note that (by tarski theorem) the first, the second, and the fifth hypostates are "ineffable", not descrpitibe or definable by the loebian machine. But then by the Tarski trick we can talk about them, and lobian machine can show that a stronger machine can prove the theology of some weaker machine, and even prove its own, but then without conveying any persuasion.

Have a good time

You too, best,


--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Le 20-janv.-06, à 16:04, John M wrote (in part):

thanks for your approval to my post on 'belief'.
this one, however, I think you mix up "evidence"
"assumption". The beautiful sunshine is "assumed"
be God's gift for us, it is a 1st person idea if
like it, or find it burning, to assign it as a
gift or
a curse. It is our "perception of reality" anyway.
I stand with my Popperian example - which you did
address in my post - about 'proof and

I did elsewhere. Also I think we could have perhaps
some vocabulary
I agree that some believer in God does assume that a
beautiful sunshine
is a God's gift to us. Here I was more alluding to
Plato's view of God
as "the Good", and I was talking about someone who
makes such a
personal experience of beauty, in front of that
sunshine, that he takes
it as a, personal or first person for sure,
experience of the
Good/God/whatever (sort of mystical experience if
you want).
Of course it is not a proof (as in pure math), nor
an evidence in the
Popper sense of confirmation. Nor can a
reconstitution of oneself
during a teleportation be a proof of comp, nor can
quantum suicide
provides any proof that QM, or Everett, or comp are
true. First Person
Knowledge is just incorrigible and unfalsifiable,
and as such
unscientific. Science is concerned only with third
person discourses,
or, arguably, with first person plural discourses
(the one which I
defined explicitly through duplication of
populations of individuals).

Now I don't think it is really important to be so
precise in the
beginning. At some point I will be obliged to say
counter-intuitive propositions and explain how in
some important cases
first person truth can indirectly lead to 100%
falsifiable third person
propositions, but it is not easy to explain. Well, I
wouldn' t have
believe myself a large part of what I want to
explain if that wouldn't
have been confirmed by the Lobian interview.
Nevertheless, I am
realizing now  that many "rational mystics"
(including the Neoplatonist
pagan theologians) are closer to the lobian machine
than I would have
thought before reading Plotinus. I am still
searching more confirmation
because if this is confirmed (I have some criteria)
it would put some
new light on the discussion.

I will try to sum up this in a new thread on
Plotinus (and
neoplatonism, more generally).
At some point I will explain how I am getting
(apparently) an
arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus, and on some
part of Plato's
Parmenides. My work would make Plotinus theory of
matter 100%
experimentally testable.

Of course there is nothing miraculous that honest
introspector converge
toward the lobian discourse, given that this is the
discourse of the
self-referential correct machine.

I don't know if that relation with Plotinus will
help me selling my
stuff, but this is another problem (for a future
different thread).
What some Christian theologians dismissed in Plato,
they will dismiss
it in any TOE.




Reply via email to