On 22 Sep 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
With comp, all the exists comes from the "ExP(x)" use in
arithmetic, and their arithmetical epistemological version, like
ExP(x), or <>Ex<>P(x), etc.
Can not you see, Bruno, that this stipulation makes existence
contingent upon the ability to be defined by a symbol and thus on
human whim? It is the tool-maker and user that is talking through
Confusion of level. The stipulation used to described such existence
does not makes such existence contingent at all. Only the stipulation
is contingent, not its content, which can be considered as absolute,
as we work in the standard model (by the very definition of comp: we
work with standard comp (we would not say "yes" to a doctor if he
propose a non standard cording of our brain).
That gives a testable toy theology (testable as such a theology
contains the physics as a subpart).
Testable, sure, but theology should never be contingent. It must
flow from pure necessity and our finite models are simply
insufficient for this task.
First our model is not finite, only our theories and machines are. And
the AUDA illustrates clearly that theology's shape (the hypostases)
follows pure necessity, even if all machine will define a particular
arithmetical content for each theology, but this is natural, as it
concerns the private life of individual machine (it is the same for us
by default in all religion).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at