2012/5/22 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>

>  On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
>
>>  On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
>>
>>> On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>> No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step,
>>>> computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to
>>>> the 1p indeterminacy.
>>>>
>>>> Quentin
>>>>
>>>>   Hi Quentin,
>>>
>>>    So could we agree that the idea that the universe is
>>> defined/determined ab initio ("in the beginning") is refuted by this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the universe per se does
>> not exist, it emerges from computations and is not an object by itself
>> (independent of computations).
>>
>>
>>  Dear Quentin,
>>
>>     My interest is philosophy so I am asking questions in an attempt to
>> learn about peoples ideas. Now I am learning about yours. Your sentence
>> here implies to me that only "objects" (considered as capable of being
>> separate and isolated from all others) can "exist". Only "objects" exist
>> and not, for example, processes. Is this correct?
>>
>
> No, it depends what you mean by existing. When I say "in comp the universe
> per se does not exist", I mean it does not exist ontologically as it emerge
> from computations. Existence means different thing at different level.
>
> Does a table exist ? It depends at which level you describe it.
>
>
> Dear Quentin,
>
>     I am trying to understand exactly how you think and define words.
>
>     By "exist"
>

Existence is dependent on the level of description, and can be seperated by
what exists ontologically and what exists epistemologically. So it depends
on the theory you use to define existence.

I would favor a theory which would define existence by what can be
experienced/observed. Maybe it's a lack of imagination, but I don't know
what it would mean for a thing to exist and never be observed/experienced.


> are you considering capacity of the referent of a word, say table, of
> being actually experiencing by anyone that might happen to be in its
> vecinity or otherwise capable of being causally affected by the presence
> and non-presence of the table?
>
>
>
> I still don't understand what you mean by "the idea that the universe is
> defined/determined ab initio ("in the beginning") is refuted by this".
>
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
>
>     Don't worry about that for now. Let us nail down what "existence" is
> first.
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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