Dear Bruno,


    Thank you for this wonderful post! Interleaving...



----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 1:43 PM

Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary?



>
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
>
>>  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...
>
> [BM]
> The source of individuation could be personal memory I think. Like a
> sequence of W and M appears in the diary of someone subjected to an
> iterated WM-self-multiplication experiment. Memory is rather easy to
> define once we assume comp. The main difficulty here is to get an idea
> of what "personal" means, and for this we need a theory of
> self-reference, ... and that is what the diagonalization posts are all
> about.

[SPK]



    Does not the notion of "memory" carry with it some requirement of 
"persistence under changes/transformations". It seems to be a lot 
likeā€invariance", 
but one that can be read and written. Pratt's restatement of Descartes 
dictum: "I think, therefore I was" can be easily seem to be equivalent to: 
"I am what I remember (active reading of memory) myself to be."

    Comp, I am claiming requires more than just the mere a priori existence 
of AR (Platonic theory of Numbers), it requires a means to relate them to 
one another. This latter requirement seems to require both a means to relate 
and distinguish Numbers from each other. This is more than a linear 
superposition! We need a means to explain the appearance of Interaction: I 
read recently that some prominent scientist said something like that the 
physical realm is the means by which Numbers interact, I agree but go 
further to claim, with Pratt, that if we are required to have even some 
"appearance" of a physical realm, why not go all the way and put it on equal 
footing with the Ideals? (Symmetry anyone?!)

    Pratt solves the problem of dualism! Why do we still demand an 
incomplete and asymmetric Monism?



    As to the notion of "personal", it seems to me that what we mean by such 
is some means of self-referencing that is capable of "updating", this brings 
in the notion of "memory"... I still do not see how any form of 
diagonalization obtains self-referencing absent some means that allows the 
entries in the columns and rows to both "be themselves" and "relate to each 
other".

    Goedelization works because we have the tacit idea that we can write a 
representation of a number as a symbol of something physical, giving it a 
persistence.... Where is the Platonic "paper tape"?


> ***
> [BM]
> Concerning Pratt's dualism, it seems to me it is a purely mathematical
> dualism a priori coherent with number platonism, although further
> studies could refute this. Open problem. I don't see Pratt reifying
> either primary matter or primary time, it seems to me.

[SPK]



    Pratt does not seek to reify neither a primary notion of matter or time. 
His Dualism becomes a Russellerian neutral Monism in the limit of Existence 
in itself. When the notion of distinguishability vanishes, so do all notions 
of Predicates and Properties, all that is left is mere Existence. This is 
why I am pounding hard on the apparent problem that monistic Platonism 
suffers from a severe problem, that it is only a coherent theory if and only 
if there is some "subject" to which the Forms have a meaning and this 
"subject" can not be a Form!

    Any form of Monism will have this severe incompleteness that has been 
heretofore overlooked because of the continued use of the tacit assumption 
of a 3rd person Point of View. Strip away the distinguishability that the 
3rd person entails and Forms become exactly isomorphic to each other.

    Pratt shows how the "arrow of Time" has a dual aspect, the "arrow of 
logical implication" and from this a very elegant explanation of 
interactions and causality follows, among other things... ;-) 
(Unfortunately, most readers of his papers do not seem to get past the 
abstract...)



http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html#concur02

http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html#ratmech

http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html#P5









> [BM]
> I think a similar dualism appears in Plotinus cosmogony where
> (simplifying a lot!) *from outside* the Good transforms itself
> degenerating eventually into Evil (also called Matter by the
> (neo)platonist!) and by doing so makes the soul falling inexorably in
> that matter) and *from inside* all souls extract themselves from that
> matter and are inexorably attracted by the Good and converge toward it.
> Arrows are reversed. And with comp it can be argued that the choice of
> the Categories of sets and its dual (which funnily enough gives the
> category of boolean algebras) is a genuine one, although some
> quasi-constructive alpha-categories could fit in a still more better
> way (I think). But I have neither the time nor the competence to really
> develop such approaches. Also, finding good notion of coherence here
> seems to me to be a little bit ad hoc so that I refer to you the the
> comp derivation path of those coherence conditions.

[SPK]



    Yes, we are converging here, but with this proposed dualism the 
"outside" is the *neutral* monism of Existence. BTW, it is interesting to 
point out that the use of an equivalence between the notion of "points" and 
"sets" gives us the basic "objects" that make up our notions of "space", all 
be have to add is a liberal amount of symmetry generators. This follows the 
same pattern as what is required to complete Mathematics: numbers and the 
relations between them.



    Bodies are the sets (as point and their interactions = Physics!) and 
Minds are the Boolean algebras (information structures and their 
implications = Computations!). Is this so hard to swallow?



    All we are asked to do here is do stop trying to make up a static 
Universe! This reminds me of Einstein's "greatest mistake", his addition of 
a "cosmological constant" to make his field equation give a static solution. 
Look what that has lead to!



Onward!



Stephen



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to