Hi benjayk,

I might comment other paragraphs later, but for reason of time and business, I will just go on some points.


On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote:
You can expect that a theory which unify all force will not be *that*
simple. Now, with comp, if you like simplicity, you should like that
the theory is a little theory of numbers (and that the observers is
that same theory + the induction axioms). All what I explain in the
quote can be defined precisely in that theory.
It's interesting, but I can't wrap my head around it so easily and I am just
too lazy to study it. I don't think it would be much use for me.

The whole approach is not instrumental.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Shit happens, provably so in the comp theory. We can practice harm
reduction, but we cannot eliminate the bad. And, indeed it has its
role in the big picture.
Yep. But harm reduction often does not work that well. You know, like
reducing harm by illegalizing drugs. It easily leads to authoritarianism. And it may easily be anti-progress. Progress means also great new dangers.

The harm-reduction philosophy comes from anti-prohibitionism. The idea is to inform people. It really comes from, I think, the fact that oral tobacco is much safer that smoking tobacco, which was hard to accept for those who are 'religiously' against tobacco. It is known that it is prohibition which makes the drug dangerous, so harm reduction really means the stopping of prohibition, and sending strongly addicted people to the hospital instead of jail (like we do with alcohol).
Basically HARM REDUCTION = ANTI-PROHIBITION.



But the ultimate soul (God), does
not fall, as in a accident. It falls, because this it what it always
does.
It falls into itself.

All right. But not always, only one half eternity (so to speak, again).
Hm... When exactly does he not fall?

When heart and reason makes peace.


In my mind the creatures are God,

[you are probably not supposed to say this. Enlightened people already
know, and lost souls cannot grasp]

You can say things like "I love logic", or I love this or that plant".
I think you are a bit too anxious about saying the forbidden things. But you are right, it won't really help. But then, a soul that's really lost cannot
be helped. It has to find it's way on its own.

It is worst than that. By telling incommunicable truth, you aggravate the situation of the soul, or you make it fall. In comp there are many such statement X which are not provable, but where comp -> X is provable. Comp itself is like that, and that is why I insist that comp is a bet. It cannot even be made into an axiom, only a meta-axiom. It *is* delicate.



Well, in my mind "inconsistent" things are just labels that we can't attach
some precise meaning to. If I say 1+1=3 is true in the usual natural
numbers, you just don't know what I mean. You might say I am "wrong". But maybe I just have another conception of the usual natural numbers as you do,
or pretend so.  :P We can always play this game of relativizing
descriptions.

Yes, like you can always visit France with a map of Germany.
Inconsistency is a Löbian machine's right.
But you were the one mentioning "use"! And a map of Germany, in France, is of no use (unless you are planning an invasion, of course).



Well, with comp, all the rest is just 0, 1, 2, ... plus two
operations. I don't ask to assume a lot. But with less than that, the
hypostases becomes trivial, and you can no more see how the Soul
emanates from the Noùs which emanates from God, and you cannot see of
the soul is led to the building of matter appearances.
I just think we don't need the assumption of the existence 0,1,2,3,... We
can use it without pretending it exists "out there".


If you say that we can use it, you already accept it is "out there" in the weak sense I am using.




Because we need to study the relation between a truth, like 1+1=2, and
a belief by a "terrestrial little ego" B(1+1=2).
But we can use different levels of epistemological truth for that.

OK. Then "1+1 =2" means God believes that 1+1 = 2.
B(1+1=2) means benjayk (or some other machine) believes that 1+1=2.

I have to go,

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 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.

Reply via email to