Hi Stephen P. King 

True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme 
intelligence
insures that the same result happens. In other words, you can't tell the 
difference.
So at least in one place Leibniz says, "True, they don't actually interact,
because ideas as substances cannot interact, but there's no harm in saying 
that they do."


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012 
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, 16:39:18
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof


On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and 
> sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of 
> arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal 
> machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to 
> the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem.
>
> You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time 
> invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to 
> present it.
Dear Bruno,

     It is the body problem that is your problem. There is no solution 
for it in strict immaterialism. Immaterials cannot interact, they have 
nothing with which to "touch" each other. All they can do is imagine the 
possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of 
"imagining the possibility of X" (a string of recursively enumerable 
coding the computational simulation of X).
     This would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up 
in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the 
concurrency problem. It is the scarcity of physical resources that 
forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how 
to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource 
availability!

     My dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic 
logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to 
communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very 
well. ;-)


     By the way, I only asked from a verbal -> written English version 
of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do 
appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for.

G is

[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([]p -> p) -> []p

with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A

S4Grz is

[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p

with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A

     These symbols have verbal words associated with them, no? If you 
where to read of these sentences aloud. What English sounds would come 
out of your mouth? Could those words be transcribed here for the readers 
of the Everything List? What word corresponds, for instance, to "->" ? 
Implies?

-- 
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.

-- 
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