On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>  *Esse is not percipi*. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a
> diophantine polynomial equation".
> ------------------------
> *St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with the
> Numbers of neo-Platonists. :_(*
> ---------------------------
> Study UDA and AUDA, it is exactly the contrary. Universal machines,
> relatively to the arithmetical truth makes the arithmetical reality into
> tuburlent unknowns. And matter still exists but is no more primitive as
> being the condition making collection of universal machines sharing part of
> the sheaves of all local computations.
> UDA is an invitation, or challenge to tell me where you think there is a
> flaw, for UDA is the point that if we can survive with a digital brain, at
> some levels, then the physical reality is not the source of the reason why
> we believe in a physical reality. It is a reasoning Stephen, I repeated it
> recently on the FOAR list, please tell me a number between 0 and 7, or 8,
> so that we can agree on what we disagree on.

My question is (my) usual: how do you describe *EXIST?*
In my view whatever passes the mental royeaume DOES indeed exist. Not the
physical world, not the "truth" ideas, ANYTHING. You escaped my earlier
question about the "Nature" (or whatever anybody may call it/her) - this
one is attached to it with your Latin caveat above exposing the
questionable 'percipi' what I indeed included as valid for 'esse'.
In the moment when the "infinite complexity" - the ever unknowable totality
- comes into play, no 3rd c.AD equation can vouch for it with all
the unknowable variants/qualia, beyond our 21.c. capabilities - many of
them potentially factoring into the outcome of (polynomial, or not)
arithmetically fitting equations in known numbers. Mathematics disallows
(in number and qualia) unaccountable variants when it comes to equations
(with potential solutions).

Also, when you feel the necesscity to include "arithmetic" with "TRUTH"
then you confessed to the partial validity of it. How about the Not (SO?)
arithmetic truth? deniable?

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