Hi Lee,

    I have no qualms with your point here, but it seems that we have skipped 
past the question that I am trying to pose: Where does distinguishability 
and individuation follow from the mere existence of Platonic Forms, if 
"process" is merely a "relation" between Forms (as Bruno et al claim)?!

    In my previous post I tried to point out that *existence* is not a 
first-order (or n-th order) predicate and thus does nothing to distinguish 
one Form, Number, Algorithm, or what-have-you from another. The property of 
individuation requires some manner of distinguishability of one "thing", 
"process", etc. from another. Mere existence is insufficient.
    We are tacitly assuming an observer or something that amounts to the 
same thing any time we assume some 3rd person PoView and such is required 
for any coherent notion of distinguishability to obtain and thus something 
"to whom" existence means/affects.

    We can go on and on about relations between states, numbers, UDs, or 
whatever, but unless we have a consistent way to deal with the source of 
individuation and thus distinguishability, we are going nowhere...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Only Existence is necessary?

Stephen writes

> > What properties do you have in mind that pure platonic algorithms
> > seem to lack?  Anything, that is, besides *time* itself?
> How about an explanation as to how an "illusion" of time obtains
> (assuming the theory of Platonic forms if correct)?

I can't speak for advocates of a timeless Platonia, because I am
not one.  I have not yet been reconciled to timelessness.

But here is what I think they would say (at least a simplified
version of what they'd perhaps say):

Future states contain some information about past states in an
unambiguous way that past states do not contain about future states.
For example, a future version of a photographic plate contains
information about the incidence of a particle upon it.

In the same way, photons moving outward from a source collectively
contain information about their source, but not about their
destination. By gradually going to more advance versions of
photographic plates and carbon chemistry, it is seen that
evolution allows for amoebas and other creatures who contain
information about their past chemical environments.

Now taking an amoeba for example, all the possible states of
it exist in Platonia. 10^10^45 or so of them, if we are to
believe Bekenstein.  But if you observe the 10^10^45 carefully,
you will find a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny
set of them somewhere that seem to tell a story.

The "story" thus told is the life-history of the amoeba,
including every possible thing that can happen to it.

(Now I myself have some objections to this account---though
I reckon it can all be fixed up by a UD, that it by focusing
instead on programs that themselves produce sequences of states
---but I have the same sort of objection that I've always had
to Hilary Putnam's claims about all computations (within certain
huge bounds) taking place in a single rock.)


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