On 30 Sep 2011, at 13:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2011 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If comp +Theaetus is correct, you have to distinguish physical
which is of the type <>#, and existence, which is of the type
x...". I will use the modal box  and diamond <> fro the
hypostases (X = BX & DX).
It seems that we have very different ideas of the meaning of
Existence. "Ex ... x..." seems to be a denotative definition and
thus is not
neutral with respect to properties. I may not comprehend you
It seems that you introduce meta-difficulties to elude simple
Do you have a concept for "the totality of all that exists"?
A priori and personally: no.
Assuming comp: yes. N is the totality of what exists, but, assuming
have to add this is a G* minus G proposition. It is not really
communicable/provable. You have to grasp it by your own
UDA, for example).
Would such be unnamable for you? It is for me.
Yes. Arithmetical truth, which relies on the ontic N whole, is
me, that is why I can only refer to it indirectly, by making the comp
As I see it, existence itself is the neutral primitive ground of
abstract and concrete. Perhaps my philosophy is more like dual-
than neutral monism.
Can you elaborate shortly on the difference between dual-aspect and
monism? Comp is octal-aspect monism, when Theaetetus enters into
Once I have constructed a mental representation of the subject
reasoning or concept I can use the symbolic representations in a
capacity. This is how we dyslexics overcome our disability. :-)
Why don't you do that for "Ex ... x ...."? in the numbers domain?
My result is: mechanism entails immateralism (matter can exist but
more any relation with consciousness, and so is eliminated with the
weak occam principle). This should be a problem for you if you want
both mechanism and weak materialism, but why do you want to do
that. On the
contrary, mechanism makes the laws of physics much more solid and
providing an explanation relying only on diophantine addition and
I reject all form of monism except neutral monism. Existence
the only primitive.
In what sense would mechanism, after UDA, not be a neutral monism.
When you use the word "existence" without saying what you assume to
it look like the joke "what is the difference between a raven?".
The totality of all that exists, it merely exists.
In non founded set theories, perhaps. But this is assuming far too
again in the comp frame. The totality of all that exists does not
sense to me. I can imagine model of Quine New Foundation playing
but that is too much literal, and seems to me contradictory, or
quasi-contradictory. But with comp this would be a reification of the
epistemological. We just cannot do that.
Prior to the specification of properties, even distinctions
there is only existence. Existence is not a property such as Red,
heavy. It has no extension or form in itself but is the possibility
and have all properties.
This seems to me quite speculative, and useless in the comp theory.
were betting that comp is false, I could understand the motivation
postulation, but are you really betting that comp is false?
Numbers and arithmetic presuppose a specific meaning, valuation
This is fuzzy. In the TOE allowed by comp, we can presuppose only
0, s, *,
and + and the usual first order axioms.
This implies, in my reasoning, that they are not primitive.
They are ontologically primitive, in the sense that ontologically
the only things which exist. even computations don't exist in that
sense. Computations already exists only relationally. I will keep
that computations exists, for pedagogical reasons. For professional
logicians, I make a nuance, which would look like total jargon in
You seem to assume that they are objects in the mind of God, making
Existence. I disagree with this thinking.
But with comp, God = arithmetical truth, although we have to be
because no machines, including perhaps me, can really assert that.
It is a
just non rationally communicable, but "betable", once we bet on comp.
Could you define to me what you mean by topological dual of a
number, or a
I do not recognize the idea that a number or a program has a
isolate from all else. I do not understand your theory of
How does meaningfulness arise in your thinking? I use a non-well
type Dictionary model and have discussed it before.
Meaning arise in the mind of number, and the mind of numbers arise
computational relations they have with other numbers, probably so
I have never stop to give references on this, beyond my own work.
name Boolos, Smorynski, Smullyan in my papers and books, or in my
What is it that you don't understand in the second part of the sane
I do not understand how you ignore the fact that one must have
to implement a set of distinguishable symbols, configuration of
on slate, etc. to denote and connote an abstraction. It is as if you
presuppose physicality without giving it credit for what it does. I
know what else to say now to make this idea more clear.
You keep confusing the number 17, with physical representation of it.
I do have symbols, but why should they be physical. I use the mark
I can use anything else, physical or not. Arithmetic does not
physicalness? Book on numbers say nothing about any possible
Physicist seems not to have the notion of models, and use that term
logician use the term "theory". Roughly speaking, for a logician
for "a reality". I remind you also that Deutch advocates
so, if you get the UDA as you said, you know that Deustch
incoherent with digital mechanism (which he advocates in FOR).
I wish that you would write more addressing this critique of
Recently on the FOR list Deustch admitted not having a reply to my
objection. I think he wants still searching one.
Arithmetical truth is the territory. Machines and numbers are what
maps of the territory. When you say "yes" to a doctor, you are just
a map for another. Nowhere is a confusion between map and
for the fixed points, like the here and now indexical
consciousness. But we
can be thankful that this is possible (in computer science) because
the map/brain useful when relating with a probable part of the
But are when maps and territories are made of the "same stuff"
Not necessarily. Or you take the word stuff too literally perhaps.
I used the word 'stuff" in quotes so that it would not be taken
OK, but then there is no problem with maps and territories having
"stuff". You can use Kleene second recursion theorem, of your
theories to provide sense to such fixed points.
You can use Scott topology to modelize computations. Stopping
correspond to fixed point transformations.
But my question was more easy, and can be recasted in physical
terms: does a
machine stop or not stop (accepting a robust physical universe, and
accidental asteroid destructing the machine)?
OK, I still do not comprehend how you can say this and still be
monist. I am tired.
Take a nap, and then you might answer the simple question: accept
truth that [phi_i(j) converge V phi_i(j) does not converge].
I remind you also that you can classify me as an ideal monist only
accept that numbers are ideas (in God's mind, perhaps), but I
classify the comp's consequence as being neutral monism, or octal-
But this might only be a vocabulary problem.
I am not arguing for or against any philosophical truth. My point is
technical. It is that IF we can survive with a material digital
THEN the physical laws emerge, in a precise way, from already only
and multiplication of (non negative) integers.
Another way to put it: IF we can survive in a digital "matrix",
then we are
already in a digital matrix.
I am not pretending that the proof is without flaw, but up to now,
find flaws in the way people describe flaws in the reasoning: they
introduce systematically a supplementary philosophical hypothesis
somewhere. No philosophical hypothesis can refute a deductive
se (it might certainly help to find a flaw, but then they have to
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at