On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote:
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.
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).
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?
No. It is contained in Church thesis. Church thesis assumed elementary
arithmetic (and thus the Sigma_1, etc.).
only "understands" the other aspect as "a body problem".
That's the result.
Right. Not the singular form!
Well it is a sequence of result. 1p-indeterminacy, non-locality, non
cloning, reduction of the mind-body problem to an arithmetical body
problem, theory of quanta as part of a theory of qualia, etc. Just
read the papers, as my answer can only point on what has already be
I disagree that they are "unaware of 1p indeterminacy";
They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = many
The assumption have been made clear. None of what you say is assumed.
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
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
It is an elementary consequence of comp. All the existence of
universal numbers is a consequence of arithmetical truth. (Of course
all arithmetical theory will miss some of such existence, but they
still exist in arithmetical truth which is beyond all theories).
You prove it by demonstration via the copy and paste operations.
Do you think that this is the only method of generating a plurality
See my answer to Clark. I have already explain this.
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
Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of a
conspiracy of numbers?
Why? Not at all.
Are you talking literally about numbers????
Yes. 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... With the laws
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
And nothing else (except for some logic sugar), and the comp assumption.
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 or "meaning" in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideas
This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish is
nice, not sure if you known Spanish....
Make your point, please.
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