Le 11-juin-07, à 13:24, David Nyman wrote in part: (I agree with the 
non quoted part) ....

> Are we any closer to agreement, mutatis terminoligical mutandis?  My
> scheme does not take 'matter' to be fundamental, but rather an
> emergent (with 'mind') from something prior that possesses the
> characteristics of self-assertion, self-sensing, and self-action.  I
> posit these because they are what is (Occamishly) required to save the
> appearances.

... And here too.

> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,

We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR 
(Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative 
reflexivity power of the number's themselves.

> with
> its intrinsic (arithmetical) set of symmetry-breaking axioms,

OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure 
there remains technical problems ...)

> then
> COMP perhaps can stand for the process that drives this potential
> towards emergent layers of self-action and self-sensing.

Yes. Perhaps, indeed.

> It then
> becomes an empirical programme whether AR+COMP possesses the synthetic
> power to save all the necessary phenomena.


> As you would wish it, I
> imagine.

Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be 
interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental 
physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of 
the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with 
the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to 
the right physics, that would be nice, sure.



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 

Reply via email to