is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such..... and is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore proving the fact that "man is the measure of all things", and all things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person entities and nothing more except as projected by man.
On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how > >> computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of > >> mathematical > >> propositions is as follows: > > >> Most would agree that a statement such as "8 is composite" has an > >> eternal > >> objective truth. > > > Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. > > But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any > universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws > cannot depend on the choice of the "universal base". Lat us continue > with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But isn't that true of nearly anything? How many axiomatic systems > > are there? > > >> Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X. > >> Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. > >> Let's say > >> N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive > >> definition of > >> the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior > >> states, and is > >> therefore a kind if computation. Since N may be infinitely large, > >> then in a > >> sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever. Likewise one > >> might > >> say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical > >> truth. For > >> chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all > >> programs > >> must occur. > > >> Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity, > >> consider the > >> universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n > >> +1)= Z(n)^2 > >> + C. Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of > >> structures > >> such as our universe or the computation of your mind. > > > Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of "mind"? > > If so, why? > > > Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just > > a way of thinking about our experience? > > > Is it: > > > Recursive relations cause thought. > > > OR: > > > Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational > > beliefs. > > I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming > Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories, > machines, entities, etc. > > Jason is right, computation occurs in "arithmetical platonia", even in > a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is > assumed in the rest of science, and comp makes it necessarily enough > (by taking seriously the first and third person distinction). > > Bruno > > > > > The latter seems more plausible to me. > > > Rex > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > 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.
