On 24 Feb 2011, at 01:20, 1Z wrote:

On Feb 23, 9:46 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 22 Feb 2011, at 22:14, benjayk wrote:

Molecules and Cells are formal things. Form is matter, in *some*

Form is not *primary* matter in any sense.

That is why I say "in *some* sense.
I do agree more than you could perhaps expect, because the phenomenological "primary matter" which is apparent for the universal Löbian machine is indeed typically without form, or with undeterminate form, given that it is a sum on all forms, against in a technical way which I will not detail here.

People having problem with numbers have been victim of a traumatic
teaching of math.
The philosophical question of the existence of any thing, except
consciousness here and now, is desperately complex.

That is why I like comp, because it allows (and forces) to derive the
psychological existence, the theological existence, the physical,
existence, and the sensible existence from the classical existence of
numbers, which is simple by definition, if you agree with the use of
classical logic in number theory.

What is classical existence?

It is "Ex" as used in classical logic, and in our context, by some Löbian machine. If you prefer It is the existence proved in the sound extensions of Peano Arithmetic.

The other existence can be defined formally trough the modal points of view. For example, roughly speaking, a physical phenomenon x "exists" if we can prove BD(Ex(BDp(x)), with the B and D defined like in the fourth and fifth arithmetical hypostases, and "p" some arithmetical proposition. Neither physical existence, nor psychological existence are classical existence. They are rather intuitionist existence and quantum existence. That follows from the sharp definition I use, and by using results by Boolos, Goldblatt, and Visser. They remain classical when seen as epistemological or modal, but they are not "lived" as such, given that no machine can known what really is its own "B" predicate (saying "yes" to a doctor *is* a big jump).


PS Did you get, or not the step seven? Do you agree that in any universe running a UD, their "primary matter" does not solve the comp WR problem, and that physics is reduced to that problem?


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to