Hi Stephen P. King
I try to avoid the word "existence"
because, as you show, it can be used in a number of ways
ontologically.
That's why I use extended and inextended instead.
Or try to.
Roger Clough, 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
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 12:43:58
Subject: Re: Pratt theory
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
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
Receiver: everything-list
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?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.
