Le 19-sept.-06, à 08:02, Colin Hales a écrit :

<x-tad-bigger>I</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>’</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>m overrun with stuff at uni, but I have this one issue </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>–</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> solipsism- which is hot and we seem to be touching on, so I thought you may help me collect my thoughts before I run off</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>…</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> gotta leave all those threads hanging there</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>…</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>and I left them in an awfully under engineered state</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>…</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>sorry!</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>SIDE ISSUE (infinity and the UDA)</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Fromthe UDA you can show that to make comp false you need to introduce actual infinities in the subject.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>The infinitely small and infinitely large are two sides of the same thing. One can construct an infinitesimal as an identity = the difference between two very nearly cancelling infinities (type A and type B) or from a single infinity consisting of an infinite number of random simple transitory events (changes from state A to B and back) that acts as an effective average ‘NOTHING’.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>From this ‘change based’ model of infinity, based on mere statistical happenstance, an infinitesimal’s existence (albeit transitory) is predictable logically by the nature of the impossibility of infinity (a perfect NOTHING requires infinite cancellation of all A with all B under all circumstances). Indeed, rarely, you will get extraordinarily large (not very infinitesimal!) collections of transitory events as temporary coherence of massive quantities of simultaneous state A or state B.</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>The infinitesimal is therefore evidence of actual infinities, but in an ‘as-if’ sense. Whether this constitutes the introduction of ‘actual infinities’ in the context of disproof of the UDA you can work out yoursel</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>f</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>

It would be a problem if the actual infinities or infinitesimals were thrid person describable *and* playing some role in the process of individuating consciousness. In that case comp is false.

About solipsism I am not sure why you introduce the subject. It seems to me nobody defend it in the list.
Perhaps we should abandon both the term solipsism and the term platonism, and use instead the terms
subjective 1-personal idealism for "solipsism"
and objective 3-personal idealism for platonism,

But I am not sure either. Change of terminology hardly solves problem, but it can help in some context.



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