Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I don't understand really what you mean by "AUDA is not RITSIAR". AUDA > is just the lobian interview, or if you prefer the complete > mathematical formalization of the UDA reasoning. In some sense you can > interpret it as the eventual elimination of the "yes doctor" hypothesis > in the UDA argument (but here I do simplify a little bit). Yes, sorry, perhaps I should have said 'if number is not RITSIAR, is anything?' The intention behind the question is to find out how and where you would apply RITSIAR in your schema - if at all - because Peter has been willing to do this but you haven't. I just want to know why. David > Le 29-oct.-06, à 17:43, David Nyman a écrit : > > > Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the way > > down', and I asked you what would you find if you went 'all the way > > down', you replied 'primary matter'. IOW, you posit primary matter as a > > 'bare substrate' to which are attached whatever properties theory or > > experiment may suggest. Consequently, isn't it the case that you are > > defining this 'bare substrate' (which by posit has no properties of its > > own) as whatever-it-is that is RITSIAR (i.e. you might say that it's > > what exists)? Bruno, aren't you making essentially the same claim for > > AUDA, in attempting to derive all properties from it? > > > P. Jones posit a primary matter having no properties, and he does not > explain how things with properties can emerge from that. > I posit numbers (not AUDA which is just an acronym for the Arithmetical > translation of the Universal Dovetailer Argument). > And numbers have well know properties of their own (they can be even, > odd, prime, godel-number, etc.). And from those number properties I > explain the possible n-person discourses. And from UDA one of them is > the physical discourse, so it is "easy" to test comp through empiry. > > > > > > In your schema, > > if AUDA isn't RITSIAR (even if you'd rather define 1-ritsiar or > > 3-ritsiar separately), then is anything? > > I don't understand really what you mean by "AUDA is not RITSIAR". AUDA > is just the lobian interview, or if you prefer the complete > mathematical formalization of the UDA reasoning. In some sense you can > interpret it as the eventual elimination of the "yes doctor" hypothesis > in the UDA argument (but here I do simplify a little bit). > > > > Are these two views > > commensurable at all? Or are you saying that we can only maintain a > > Wittgensteinian silence on such questions? > > > Wittgenstein said to much, or not enough. He felt in the trap he was > describing. The difference between G and G* can be used to make this > transparently clear, and can even be used to argue that eventually > Wittgenstein realize the point in his last writings (on certainty). > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
