On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:

By the way, Darwin's theory revolves around the notion of evolution, that "simpler objects" can evolve and change. Numbers, by definition, cannot change and thus cannot implement any form of change or evolution.

So you assume a primitive time?

No, there cannot be a primitive time because that would require a primitive measure and the same reasons that we cannot have primitive physical worlds nor primitive abstract entities would hold. We need to discuss how measures come to occur.

First person indeterminacy. It is the classical boolean Gaussian measure on the set of relative computations, as seen by the machines (the "as seen" is made technically precise in AUDA).

Dear Bruno,

I had a tiny epiphany this morning as I read your remarks and I think that it is best that I surrender to you on my complaint that your result goes to far and is really a form of ideal monism and turn to discussions of the ideas of measures and interactions. My main motivation is to see how far Prof. Kitada and Pratt's ideas are compatible with yours.

Could you elaborate a bit on Gaussian measures. They are unfamiliar to me.



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