On 8/1/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Jul 2012, at 20:28, Stephen P. King wrote:Your statement here demonstrates that I have entirely failed tocommunicate my thoughts so that you could understand them. You arearguing against a straw man. What you write here as "Stephen's idea"is as Wolfgang Pauli might say: "not even wrong". I am proposing thatnumbers and arithmetical truth are (at least) relational structureswithin the realm of the mind, the mind of observers which are notexclusive to humans.But what is mind? I fail to understand you because you fail to give atheory that I could explain to my niece. You fail to give me what weaccept as existing and how we derive the phenomenology. You refer topaper which postulate too much to address the mind-body problem in thecomp setting.

Dear Bruno,

`A mind is, for example, the subject of books such as David`

`Chalmer's "The Conscious Mind" with the addition that a mind is *at`

`least* representable as a Boolean Algebra. I full-throatily endorse`

`Chalmer's definitions and ideas. I have already defined "existence" as`

`*that which is necessarily possible*.`

*Any system* that can implement a unitary transformation would have amind by my definition.So you agree that elementary arithmetic has a mind?

`No, not alone. Elementary arithmetic is a necessary component of a`

`mind but it is not sufficient to be a mind. A mind has a "becoming"`

`aspect that cannot be captured by fixed and static relational schemata.`

`Elementary arithmetic represents the primitive act of counting, but is`

`not the counting itself. We must never mistake an object for its`

`representation unless the two are actually the same thing, as in the`

`case of a physical system being its own best possible simulation. This`

`is a very subtle point that I need to explain better. A self-simulation`

`is a form of automorphism. Some of the algebra of such is in a paper`

`found here`

`<stephe...@webpages.charter.net/Outlaw/An%20Algebra%20of%20Bisimulation.pdf>:`

`webpages.charter.net/Outlaw/An Algebra of Bisimulation.pdf`

(It is an easy theorem that elementary arithmetic implements allunitary transformations, but this remark is trivial and does not solvethe mind-body problem, but it makes it formulable in arithmetic or inarithmetical terms).

`There is no "mind-body" problem once one accepts the Stone duality`

`relationship as representing the mind-body relationship. All that is`

`left is the interaction between minds problem (or its dual interacting`

`bodies problem),`

The dualism that I am advocating is explained in Vaughan Pratt'spaper http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf and is arehabilitation of Descartes failed version by dropping the idea of a"primitive substance" and using the natural duality of Categories toco-define "minds" and "bodies". Becoming is considered to be thefundamental primitive. This idea of becoming is explainedhere:http://www.metasciences.ac/time_XIV.pdf<http://www.metasciences.ac/time_XIV.pdf>Going from a third person view to a first person view transforms (by1-indeterminacy) an "and" into an "or" like in "Paul is in W _and_Paul is in M" to "Paul feels to be in W _or_ Paul feels to be in M".

`The 3p is an abstraction from the mutual non-contradiction of many`

`1p. It is not a primitive.`

Is that a particular case of Vaughan Pratt's duality?

`Pratt does not explore the 1-ideterminacy as he assumes spaces from`

`the start (using theChu space <http://chu.stanford.edu/>`

`representation). Pratt's discussion is weak for this (and some other)`

`reasons and I am trying to strengthen the theory. Your 1-indeterminacy`

`is a way to define spaces if and only if the interaction problem is`

`assumed to be solved first.`

`We cannot assume that there exist (are necessarily possible) a`

`plurality of "locations" prior to the copy/paste operation. One must`

`assume a space and then localize "Paul" in it. In other words, only`

`until and unless W and M (and so forth) are defined is it possible for`

`sentences like "Paul is in W _and_ Paul is in M" and "Paul feels to be`

`in W _or_ Paul feels to be in M" to be meaningful. We cannot just assume`

`prior necessary possibility (existence) as generating the reality of the`

`locations. Reality requires a collection of entities to whom the`

`locations are incontrovertible (no mutual contradictions).`

`This implies a circular relationship between observers and`

`locations! This is not problematic nor pathological as long as one is`

`operating with the proper logic and set theory: the Non-Well Founded Set`

`theory <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonwellfounded-set-theory/> as`

`explained by Jon Barwise et al. (You might have noticed a reference to`

`the Liar Paradox in Pratt's paper, this was a hint to the NWF set`

`construction...)`

BrunoOn 7/31/2012 6:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:I was just opposing Stephen's idea with the comp idea that numbersand arithmetical truth is a (human) mental construct necessitatingsome primitive time, space or physical reality. With comp, I arguethat arithmetical truth is simpler and can explain why the numbers(or better the person associated to those numbers) construct ideasof time and space, and why they can believe in some genuine way inthem, and be deluded in believing that they are primitive.

-- 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.