On 24 Aug 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King 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?
And this is what I explain with all details since years on this list,
refering to peer reviewed papers, using standard terms of the theories
in use.
But either you philosophize on it without addressing what I say, or
you justify by contingencies why you don't address it.
Your question has an easy part, and a difficult part.
- The easy part is the explanation of why interactions exist. This is
easy, because all theories of interactions, and their models, are
emulated by arithmetic, like with the example of the simulation of the
galaxy: it occurs in the UD.
- The difficult part is that such theories admits a continuum of
consistent extension, including those which will lead to aberrant
interactions, and we have to justify why they seem rare (relatively
rare) in our extension, and that is the measure problem, which we
cannot avoid with comp.
Then comp explains "easily" the quanta and qualia separation, has
lived by each machine.
Bruno
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, [email protected]
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
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 [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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
