On 7/12/2012 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


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



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

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.

So a number with a given property exists only if it can be proven to have that property from axioms by the inference rules? Isn't that restrictive? I thought you extended "exist" to all x for which Ex(Px) whether provable or not.

Brent

--
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