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 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