On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,

Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the first person indeterminacy. It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a non trivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.


Hi Bruno,

Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp, because comp, as currently formulated

What do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version of mechanism ("yes doctor", + Church thesis).

Hi Bruno,

I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have to appeal to the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to build your hypostaces, no?

only "understands" the other aspect as "a body problem".

That's the result.

    Right. Not the singular form!

I disagree that they are "unaware of 1p indeterminacy";


    They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many minds.

they just ignore the idea that there is just one mind that has an infinite number of instances of a body.

You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic.


This is not entirely trivial to prove.

    Why? I just postulate that I cannot be a consistent solipsist.

You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.

How else can it be proven that the infinity of relative incarnations exists? You prove it by demonstration via the copy and paste operations. Do you think that this is the only method of generating a plurality of minds?

The "non-trivial derivation" is necessary for obvious reasons.


If a fact is trivial, how does it have any "reach" to explain any relations beyond itself?


    I misread your original sentence.

"Conspiracy of numbers"? Absolutely! But this is true in comp already.


Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a conspiracy of numbers? Are you talking literally about numbers????

Consider Bp&p; given the universe of propositions, how many are true and mutually non-contradictory?


The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truth needs semantics (models).

Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of the signified <http://books.google.com/books?id=8oPAcxDOL0IC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22problem+of+the+signified%22+semiotic+theory&source=bl&ots=OCjSwCjcVS&sig=s9s6nS-AVew_BQ5OdnhEKJs5O-A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-JvUPi-BoOw8ASV4oDQDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22problem%20of%20the%20signified%22%20semiotic%20theory&f=false> or "meaning" in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas of Platonism...

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is nice, not sure if you known Spanish....





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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to