On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of > > the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!) > > that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect > > of itself. > > Yes, and this is where Aristotle and Plotinus differs the most (even > more than Aristotle/Plato). Would the ONE have a pov, He/She/It would > be solispsist. A sad thing for a "God" ....
Sad indeed. Perhaps the One just has to differentiate to get some company. Anyway, the notion of the solipsism of the One essentially encapsulates the view I was trying to put forward from the inception of our dialogues on "first person primacy". But since the One is not what most people would consider a person (let alone a god), another term would be better. I wonder what? David > > > Le 12-juil.-07, à 16:27, David Nyman a écrit : > > > > > On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I try to avoid the words like "reflexive" or "reflection" in informal > >> talk, because it is a tricky technical terms > >> I tend to agree with what Brent said. > > > > Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing with him myself. But I > > nevertheless feel, from their posts, that this is *not* what some > > people have in mind when they use the term 'exists'. > > > "existence" is a very very tricky notion. In the theory I am proposing > (actually I derived it from the comp principle) the most basic notion > of "exists" is remarkably well formalize by first order arithmetical > logic, like in Ex(prime(x)): it exists a prime number. > All other notion of "existence" are modal variant: like > B[Ex(prime(x))], or ExB(prime(x)); I believe there is a prime number, > there is a number such that I believe that that number is prime, etc. > Of course, in the lobian frame, "B" refers itself to an arithmetical > predicate (the "Beweisbar of Godel 1931). > > > > > > > >> I'm afraid > >> that sometimes you are near the 1004 fallacy. > > > > That may well be, but unfortunately I tend only to discover specific > > examples of this by trial and error. But having done so, I try to > > hold on to the discovery. > > > OK. > > > > > > >> But of course > >> your intuition grew perhaps from non comp or non lobian origin. > > > > That's definitely the case. > > OK. (except that you are perhaps lobian, just not knowing it). > > > > > > >> (I see now what could be the comp lobian "observer moments", and will > >> say more in a special purpose post. > > > > I look forward to it. > > > Thanks. I will do that in august, if you don't mind; it asks for some > work. It will be related to the content of my next paper, where I > currently think I will use the "observer moment" notion (and refer to > the list). Roughly speaking, I think that we have to consider first > person and third person notion of OM. Nick Bostrom original one is > clearly a notion of 1-OM. > I can show that with comp there is a natural notion of 3-OM, which is > just the (true) Sigma1 sentence. They correspond to the accessible > states of the Universal Dovetailer, or to the theorem of a Robinsonian > machine or universal machine. > A universal machine (or person) get Lobian when she knows (in a > technically rather weak sense) that she is universal. This makes it > possible (well, even necessary) for the machine to distinguish the 3-OM > with all possible 1-OM notion, and this can accelerate the derivation > of the physical laws from numbers/machines relations. The new and key > point is the identification of 3-OM directly with Sigma1 sentences. > > > > > >> Coming back from Siena, I know now that all my work on Church thesis > >> is > >> more original than I thought (meaning: I have to publish more before > >> even logician grasp the whole thing ...). > > > > You have a hard row to plough! > > > > The difficulty is the interdisciplinary overlap of quantum physics, > mathematical logic and, perhaps the harder part: philosophy or > mind/theology. > > > > > > > >> Is "us" = to the lobian machine? > > > > I just meant observers in general, using myself as the model. > > > >>> and I've been trying to convince Torgny > >>> that we shouldn't fool ourselves into mistaking such conceptions for > >>> modes of existing. > >> > >> > >> But each point of view (hypostasis) defines its own "mode of > >> existence". Now Plotinus restricts the notion of existence for the > >> ideas (here: the effective objects which provably exist in Platonia). > >> That is why both God and Matter does not really exist in Plotinus > >> theory. Of course God and Matter do exist, even for Plotinus, but it > >> is > >> a different mode of existence. > > > > I'm frustrated that I don't seem to be able to communicate what I mean > > here (I don't know if this is an example of 1004 or not). I meant > > that just because we can imagine something in a gods' eye way doesn't > > (for me) entail that it exists in any other way - what I called (but > > I'll desist!) 'reflexively' (i.e. with reference to itself, or just: > > for itself), which Brent was content to call existence simpliciter. > > This intuition of course just begins with knowing that *I* exist for > > myself, which implies that others exist for themselves, which > > ultimately implies that everything exists for itself - 'the One' being > > the ultimate expression of this. I don't mean to equate 'exists for > > itself' with consciousness, but to say that consciousness emerges as a > > complex aspect of such self-relation. I'm convinced both that you > > know what I mean by this, and also that it can be expressed in the > > Lobian discourse (though not by me). > > > > Perhaps. The problem here is that I should explain technical things > just to help you to figure out the complexity of the point you single > out. To translate this in the lobian discourse is less easy than you > think. More on this in august. > > > > > > > > >>> 'The One' is also a mode of enquiry (no less tricky, of course): it > >>> seems to suggest that the mode of existing of both the qualia and the > >>> quanta may be ineliminably reflexive: the splintering of a singular > >>> process of self-reflexion. > >> > >> ? > > > > That was just another way of putting what I said above: IOW, that > > everything is a relativisation of the One, - i.e. the primary > > existent-for-itself. I see now that my '1004 fallacy' is just that > > when I'm not sure I've been understood, I try to say it another way. > > But this is confusing. I see the value of your sticking to your > > methodology, but then the problem for the generalist is that he has to > > work very hard to follow you. But that of course is my problem not > > yours. > > > Making myself, or the lobian discourse, clear is also part of my > problem, to be sure ... > > You are right: 3 explanations can help, a 4th one could be too much ... > > > > > > > > >>> Self: because there is no other; > >> > >> ? > >> > >> > >>> reflexion: because there is no other relation. > >> > >> > >> ? > > > > Another example of (over)precision perhaps. I sometimes think a lot > > of time could be saved if some of these dialogues took place in the > > same room! I just meant that, given that all existence-for-itself > > derives from relativisation of the One, the notion of 'other' itself > > becomes relative (i.e. everything is really just an aspect of the One: > > there is no 'other' in any absolute sense). > > > I would say that being oneself, is absolute from a first person pov, > but relative from a third person pov. > > > > > > Consequently, all > > relations are relations of the One with itself: i.e. self-relations. > > The reason I thought this might be important, originally, is that ISTM > > that it had a fundamental relevance to mind-body issues. I felt that > > the whole 'dualist' problem came from not seeing this. Dualism is > > clearly not relevant when everything is an aspect of the One, so that > > the relations which constitute both mind and matter are > > self-relations. > > > I'm happy you say so. > > > > > > I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of > > the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!) > > that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect > > of itself. > > Yes, and this is where Aristotle and Plotinus differs the most (even > more than Aristotle/Plato). Would the ONE have a pov, He/She/It would > be solispsist. A sad thing for a "God" .... > > 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
