Le 17-mars-06, à 13:42, John M a écrit :

> to more recent posts:
> 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism? (Our
> stupidity may allow also all the bad things that
> "happen".)

There is no REAL argument against solipsism. Nevertheless it is false, 

So solipsism is false but irrefutable, like "inconsistency" in Pean 
Arithmetic. By this I mean you can add, to consistent formal theory of 
number as new axiom the axiom saying that the theory is inconsistent. 
By Godel you will get a consistent theory. but that new theory will be 
unsound, it will proves the false proposition that the older theory is 
inconsistant, which it is not (by definition here).

Amazing. Yes. Godel, lob's theorem are amazing. They show that in all 
number theories, there are plenty of non provable truth and irrefutable 

> 2. Is reasonable or rational thinking exclusive for
> ONLY those, who live in a 'numbers' obsession?
> or is it an elitist heaughtiness to look down to all,
> who do not share such obsession? How about vice versa?
> 3. Suppose the 'numbers based' worldview gains
> universal approval (by ~3006?) - what will that help
> in the betterment of the world? or even in the
> betterment of human thinking? Or even of more civil
> general life- conditions?

My hope is that the humans will be able to preserve earth for the 
non-computationalist people. A sort of carbon-life museum.
The "number obsessive" people will spread everywhere else, in the 
multimultimulti ... verse.

But maybe a thorough computationalist (a la Plotinus) will know such a 
spreading is vain. A buddhist could perhaps be right by thinking that 
"artificial immortality" is just a way to perpetuate the Samsara, that 
is our terrestrial conditions, and that would let us never getting the 



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to