Hi Richard Ruquist 

According to Aquinas. God IS intelligence.


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: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-24, 08:54:31
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof


Stephan,
I find it interesting that according to my Roman Catholic professor theologian 
friend,
?od has intention but but intelligence. That would seem to be consistent with 
what you say below. I'll have to ask him if the church came to that viewpoint 
do to the " ordinary problem of solipsism".



On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

Dear Roger,

?? I only see one glaring gap in your explanation here: the chain of 
non-interaction leads all the way up to the supremum where God is essentially 
and effectively (not)interacting with itself. Is this not the very definition 
of Solipsism? How is the problem of solipsism not even infinitely more acute 
for God? God has no peers, so it naturally implies that the ordinary problem of 
solipsism - what does one human solipsist say to another? - is a mute point, 
but somewhere and somehow the appearance of plurality of entities must appear 
in order for us to explain appearences. This is the very same question that I 
keep asking Bruno and he seems to not understand the question: How does a 
plurality of minds emerge from the One such that they have an appearance of 
interactions without falling into the morass of allowing for everythign and 
thus, ultimately, explaining nothing?
?? It seems to me that Leibniz was working out the Everything vs. Nothing 
problem of existence from a different point of view with the monadology.


On 8/24/2012 7:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

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,

???t 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).
???his 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!

???y 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. ;-)


???y 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

???hese 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

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
-- 
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.

-- 
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