On 3/23/2012 6:47 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Joseph Knight* <joseph.9...@gmail.com <mailto:joseph.9...@gmail.com>>
Date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)
To: Joseph Knight <joseph.9...@gmail.com <mailto:joseph.9...@gmail.com>>

Sorry Stephen, I had not finished my reply to your message when I accidently hit "Send" (and then got swept away to do other things). Here's the rest of my response.

On Mar 23, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Joseph Knight <joseph.9...@gmail.com <mailto:joseph.9...@gmail.com>> wrote:

        A pre-ordained harmony is, by definition, a global regime. I
    am quite happy with the fact that you point out here, that
    "arithmetical truth is independent of a particular
    instantiation". I am arguing against independence _of all

    I know. But I think that the fact that arithmetical truth is
    independent of _particular instantiations_ already implies that
    the truth "1+1=2", say, exists independently of _all
    instantiations_ (here "instantiation" means "physical
    instantiation", as I'm sure you mean as well.) In other words,
    it exists "Platonically".

        OK, but it seems to me that making this jump from
    "independent of any particular" to "independent of all
    particulars" is a leap too far as it is, as the religious would
    say, an act of blind faith.

I think the opposite is true: it's a bizarre and unjustified belief to think that there is nothing more than particulars.

Dear Joseph,

Let us reason a bit about this belief. I think that it is very much justified simply because if one cannot name an object then statements about its truth or existence cannot be communicated. If a true statement about something cannot be communicated, is it really a truth? I assume, perhaps wrongly, that if an object can be named than it is, by definition, a "particular". Therefore, by Bp&p -> p, believing in a statement and that statement is true obliges me to only believe in particulars. Now your comment might be restated as "it is bizarre and unjustified to think that existence (or there is nothing more) is nothing more than that which can be named". Would you still believe the statement? I am merely trying to be consistent with Bruno's thesis.


        You refer to Pratt's work. It seems like an interesting
        metaphor, but I don't see how it solves the problem. Could
        you be more explicit? The "rational mechanics" paper takes,
        IMO, some odd and unjustified leaps when it comes to his
        definitions. (An example: he says that the categories SET
        and SET^OP "represent respectively the physical and the
        mental." How???)

            Did you read the entire paper? He does explain this on
        page 4 for example using functions and antifunctions... The
        key is to not think of bodies and minds as "things" but as
        processes. Pratt is considering a "process dualism", not a
        "substance dualism" as he points out that the notion of
        substance is the fatal flaw of Descartes' program. I was
        originally looking at Leibniz' Monadology in my study of the
        mind body problem and found a similar solution, but such
        required a rehabilitation of Leibniz' "pre-established
        harmony" concept. (Basically, we would replace his idea of a
        global fiat regime of synchronizations between the monads
        with a "ongoing process" idea using concepts from quantum
        game theory. I have found similar ideas in the work of Lee
        Smolin, Stuart Kaufmann
        and David Deutsch. But that is not sufficient to make it
        "true". It is just a "crazy idea" at this point.)

    Yes, I understand what the constructs are, and I see how Pratt
    is making an interesting analogy, but I don't see the
    justification for his conclusions about the mind-body problem.
    But I haven't finished grokking the article.

        It took me close to 6 years of autodidactic study to make
    sense of Pratt's work and I must say that reading the other
    papers on theChu Guide <http://chu.stanford.edu/guide.html>
    helped a lot. I know that it is too much to ask for you to invest
    this much effort into an idea that is by my admission "crazy" but
    I invite you to anyway.

Thanks for the link; I'll continue looking into it.

    Awesome! I hope that it is at least mildly entertaining.



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