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, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:[email protected]>
*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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
