Hi, 2009/7/31 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>: > > > > On 31 July, 14:57, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> On 31 Jul 2009, at 12:43, 1Z wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 31 July, 10:03, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:32, 1Z wrote (to David): >> >> >>> But you haven't said what the problem is in the emergence of the >> >>> mental >> >>> from the physical >> >> >> It is usually called the mind-body problem. There are many good book >> >> on the subject. >> >> > There are many bad solutions too. Finding a good solution >> > means having an exat grasp of the problem, not saying in some >> > vague way that mind and matter are different things. >> >> I don't see to what you make allusion. >> >> >> >> >> My own work is partially a reformulation of that problem (and >> >> partially a beginning of a solution), when taking Mechanism seriously >> >> into account. >> >> >> Tell us which step in UDA you have a problem of understanding with. >> >> Give us a number between 1 and 8, and a justification. OK? >> >> > I don't have a problem in understanding anything. I have a problem >> > in granting Platonism. Without Platonism, there is no UDA "just >> > there". >> >> I guess you mean that there is no universal dovetailer (UD) out there. >> Who ever said that? I just say that the UD exists in the sense that >> you can prove its existence in a tiny weak part of Arithmetic. > > If it isn;t RITSIAR, it cannot be generating me. Mathematical > proofs only prove mathematical "existence", not onltolgical > existence. For a non-Platonist , 23 "exists" mathematically, > but is not RITSIAR. The same goes for the UD

## Advertising

I don't understand what could be "mathematically existence" ? What is "existence" ? RITSIAR is a point of view (of an observer)... If something exists, it exists... You're using "mathematical existence" as if it meant "no existence"... why bother using existence at all then ? >> > wihout a UDA there are no generated minds, without generated minds >> > there is no illusory matter. >> >> Sure. But the UD exists, like prime number exists. > > Which for a non-Platononists is not at all > in the relevant sense. > >> > At best you have an alternative to >> > materalism-realism, >> > not a disproof of it. >> >> Well, then there should be a number between 1 and 8, or 0 and 8 where >> you miss the step. >> Apparently it is the 0 step, given that you still don't understand >> that my hypothesis is just classical digital mechanism. Classical >> means I accept the excluded third principle. >> >> I think the confusion comes from the fact that I obtain platonist (in >> Plato or Plotinus sense) conclusions. But the hypotheses are 100% >> neutral or agnostic on this point. Like in Paris and Brussels you >> still confuse the conclusion (admittedly startling) and the hypothesis. >> > How can a conlusion that the material world doesn't exist > be neutrral about Platonism? If Platonism is false, > the mathematical world doesn';t exist either. and > there is nowhere for the UD to exist at all. Again what existence means in this case ? >> Show me a piece of text I have written, anywhere, which makes you >> think so please, >> >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > Regards, Quentin -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---