Hi Mark,

Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit :

> John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look 
> at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in 
> the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly 
> prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this 
> at too levels:
>  1/   firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I 
> am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say 
> something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I 
> say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right',

That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but 
useless proof of the existence of Descartes' "first person". It is 
useless because He knew it before his argument.

>  2/   the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just 
> mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just 
> seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find 
> myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities and 
> work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple intuition 
> about it all is that the universe exists whether I know it or not.

Nobody has ever said that nothing exist. I do insist that "even me" has 
a strong belief in the existence of a universe, "even" in a physical 
universe. But then I keep insisting that IF the comp hyp is correct, 
then materialism is false, and that physical universe is neither 
material nor primitively physical. I am just saying to the 
computationalist that they have to explain the physical laws, without 
assuming any physics at the start.
It is a "technical point". If we are digital machine then we must 
explain particles and waves from the relation between numbers, knots, 
and other mathematical object.
Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the 
whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by 

>  In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, 
> and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be 
> wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things going on 
> in the world, there seems to be no way of knowing if the universe 
> should be described as ultimately numeric in nature.

You are right. Actually if comp is correct, what you are saying here 
can be justified.

>  I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep 
> and meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer 
> Hubble's view of the universe; the threads and discourses seem to be 
> expanding away from me at great speed, so that every time I try to 
> follow and respond to something, everything seems to have proliferated 
> AND gone just that little bit further out of reach!

Keep asking. Have you understood the first seven steps of the UD 
Argument ? Look at my SANE paper. I think this makes available the 
necessity of the reversal physics/math without technics.
Most in this list were already open to the idea that a "theory of 
everything" has the shape of a probability calculus on "observer 
moment". Then some of us believe it is a relative measure, and some of 
us accept the comp hyp which adds many constraints, which is useful for 
making things more precise, actually even falsifiable in Popper sense.

I must go. I am busy this week, but this just means I will be more slow 
than usual. Keep asking if you are interested. Don't let you abuse by 
possible jargon ...

Just don't let things go out of reach ... (but keep in mind that 
consciousness/reality questions are deep and complex, so it is normal 
to be stuck on some post, etc.).



> Regards
> Mark Peaty  CDES
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ 
> John Mikes wrote: Bruno:
>>  has anybody ever seen "numbers"? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed 
>> up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery).
>>  "Where is the universe" - good question, but:
>>  Has anybody ever seen "Other" universes?
>>  Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl & Ar?
>>  It is amazing what learned savant scientists posted over the past 
>> days.
>>  Where are they indeed?
>>  John
>> On 2/1/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit :
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  >> Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit :
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >>>> Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical
>>>  >>>> universe.
>>>  >>
>>>  >>> Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or 
>>> Glass-of-Beer,
>>>  >>> we don' t care. But
>>>  >> we have to bet on a "reality", if we want some progress.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Now, here is what I do. For each lobian machine
>>>  >
>>>  > Where are these machines? Platonia?
>>>  Where is the universe?
>>>  > I prefer to assume what I can see.
>>>  Fair enough. I think we can sum up the main difference between
>>>  Platonists and Aristotelians like that:
>>>  Aristotelians believe in what they see, measure, etc. But platonists
>>>  believe that what they see is the shadow of the shadow of the shadow
>>>  ... of what could *perhaps* ultimately exists.
>>>  The deeper among the simplest argument for platonism, is the dream
>>>  argument. Indeed, dreaming can help us to take some distance with 
>>> the
>>>  idea that seeing justifies beliefs. Put in another way, I believe in
>>>  what I understand, and I am agnostic (and thus open minded) about
>>>  everything else.
>>>  Now to be sure, I am not convinced that someone has ever  "seen"
>>>  *primary matter*.
>>>  Bruno
>  >

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 

Reply via email to