# Re: Only Existence is necessary?

```Thanks for the diagonalization solution.  I apologize for the delay.
4th of July holiday, and now I'm busy.  I will try to give my
particular response to the diagonalization solution in the next day or
so.  I hope that my responses are representative of at least some other
people.  I think a few others give their responses, like Quentin, and I
appreciate it because then I know I'm not the only one.  3rd person
plural is better than 3rd person.  ;)```
```
Tom

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 02-juil.-06, à 08:44, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> > My point is that of the thread title "Only Existence is necessary?"
> > Not that observers are necessary for existence, but that existence is
> > insufficient for meaning.  I'm still holding out for Bruno to work the
> > rest of his diagonalization tricks to maybe try to prove otherwise.
>
>
> OK, and I'm sorry for the interruption. I am also troubled by Norman's
> post, I am afraid he loses the track just for reason of notation. The
> beauty of recursion theory is that you can arrive quickly, without
> prerequisites, to startling fundamental results.
>
> Now, as I said recently, it is really the UD Argument (UDA) which makes
> mental and physical existence secondary to arithmetical truth. The diag
> stuff just isolates a more constructive path so as to make comp
> testable.
>
> Somehow I agree with you: existence (being physical, mental, or
> numerical) is not enough for meaning, but once we assume comp, meaning,
> seen as first person apprehension, is, by definition, related to some
> relative computations.
>
> Now the main point is perhaps that although existence is not enough, it
> is not necessary either. And that is what really UDA shows, mental and
> physical existence are appearances (locally stable for purely number
> theoretical reasons) emerging from arithmetical truth.
>
> Comp gives a way to progress without relying on the mystery of first
> person quale (which makes meaning meaning), nor on the mystery of
> quanta existence.
>
> Our qualitative belief in numbers remains a mystery, like the truly
> qualitative part of qualia.
>
> Don't expect from the diagonalization posts that I solve *that*
> mystery, although it can be argued, assuming comp and self-referential
> correctness, that the lobian interview gives the closer third person
> explanation of why the first persons cannot escape the percept of many
> non communicable mysteries. I would bet consciousness is one of them,
> but hardly the only one. That consciousness is a mystery would already
> follow if you accept the following weak definition of consciousness.
> Consciousness as a qualitative part of an anticipation of (a) reality.
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

```