> > On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
> >>>> You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not
> >>>> invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?
> >>> "Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a
> >>> machine state] at space-time (x,t), we are obliged to associate [the
> >>> pain I feel at space-time (x,t)] to a type or a sheaf of
> >>> computations
> >>> (existing forever in the arithmetical Platonia which is accepted as
> >>> existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism). "
> >> This is in the eight step.
> >> I don't know which game you are playing, Peter, you never address the
> >> point.
> >> I have no clue what you mean by an immaterial UD, or actual existing
> >> numbers.
> > I mean exactly what you mean by "existing forever in the arithmetical
> > Platonia which is accepted as
> > existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism"
> I mean that the truth status of statement having the shape ExP(x),
> with P written in first order arithmetic is true or false
> independently of me or of any consideration.
But that doesn't mean the same thing at all. Formalists
can accept such truths, they just don't think that truths
about what exists mathematically use a literal sense of
> >> I believe that to say yes to someone who will replace my brain by a
> >> digital machine, in this in the sense of believing that it is the
> >> computation that matter at some level, I have to trust a minimal
> >> amount of computer science.
> >> If you agree that the proof of the existence of two irrational
> >> numbers
> >> such that x^y is rational does provide information, then by MG
> >> Argument you may understand the point or find a flaw, fatal or not.
> >> Who knows?
> > How do you get from providing information to an immaterial UD?
> It is program without input which generates all the Pi, that is
> programs computing the phi_i, together with their arguments and
> dovetel on the execution of the computations. It is equivalent with
> the finite + infinite proof of the Sigma_1 sentences (those with the
> shape ExP(x) with P decidable).
I don;t see what that has to do with information.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at