On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote:

## Advertising

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 adiophantine polynomial equation".------------------------St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with theNumbers of neo-Platonists. :_(---------------------------Study UDA and AUDA, it is exactly the contrary. Universal machines,relatively to the arithmetical truth makes the arithmetical realityinto tuburlent unknowns. And matter still exists but is no moreprimitive as being the condition making collection of universalmachines sharing part of the sheaves of all local computations.UDA is an invitation, or challenge to tell me where you think thereis a flaw, for UDA is the point that if we can survive with adigital brain, at some levels, then the physical reality is not thesource of the reason why we believe in a physical reality. It is areasoning Stephen, I repeated it recently on the FOAR list, pleasetell me a number between 0 and 7, or 8, so that we can agree on whatwe 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 escapedmy earlier question about the "Nature" (or whatever anybody may callit/her) - this one is attached to it with your Latin caveat aboveexposing the questionable 'percipi' what I indeed included as validfor 'esse'.

`Percipi might be valid for esse, but esse is not *just* percipi, like`

`in Berkeley statement.`

`With comp, and the UDA conclusion things are rather clear. We have`

`ontological existence, and this is given by the sandard meaning we can`

`give to existential proposition, like Ex(x is a prime number). the`

`"E" (it exists) is defined by axioms and inference rule.`

`Then you have epistemological existence, which technically are modal`

`variant of "E", like []Ex [] P(x), or similar constuction.`

In the moment when the "infinite complexity" - the ever unknowabletotality - comes into play, no 3rd c.AD equation can vouch for itwith all the unknowable variants/qualia, beyond our 21.c.capabilities - many of them potentially factoring into the outcomeof (polynomial, or not) arithmetically fitting equations in knownnumbers. Mathematics disallows (in number and qualia) unaccountablevariants when it comes to equations (with potential solutions).

`That depends on the theory. I do assume that an implementation of some`

`computation makes it possible for a consciousness to manifest itself`

`in some relative way. From this math can associate consciousness to`

`what machine or number can discover by looking inward.`

Also, when you feel the necesscity to include "arithmetic" with"TRUTH" then you confessed to the partial validity of it.

Why not?

How about the Not (SO?) arithmetic truth? deniable?

`Not at all. It exists necessarily. Formal arithmetic is necessarily`

`different from arithmetical truth, which is much vaster than anything`

`believable by any humans, numbers or machines . But machines can know`

`why it has to be like that if they are machines.`

Keep in mind that I am working with the comp hypothesis. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.