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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
