Hi Roger,

By Existence I mean all that is necessarily possible. By this definition mathematical points and theoretical domains "exist". Existence is property neutral, neither defining or excluding what is or what is not. It is not a property. It is what the philosophers attempted to mean by a "property bearer" and could not escape the illusion of substance. It is Dasein but without the actuality, since this would contradict its neutrality. Both the actual and the possible "exist"... It is not contingent on observation or measurement or knowledge.


On 8/23/2012 9:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It all depends on what you mean by existence.
If by existence you mean dasein (actually being there),
then mathematical points or theoetical domains do not exist.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."

    ----- Receiving the following content -----
    *From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-08-22, 23:38:55
    *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory

    On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
    Now this is interesting: "Points have necessary existence, all
    being present simultaneously in the physical object A.�
    15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke
    structure [Gup93]:�
    only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of燼
    lternatives.

    Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who
    does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness?

    Dear Richard,

    � No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what "Godellian
    consciousness" is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of
    Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a
    tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is
    the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers
    involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing
    theory and auction theory in� economics and has hints of Nash
    equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game
    theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the
    connections (defined as bisimulations)� between monads to exploit
    EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such
    that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the "no
    windows" rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked.

-- 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.


--
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.

Reply via email to