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