On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote:

## Advertising

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. Inthat sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers,seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of themind-body problem. It is still Aristotle theory variants, unawareof the first person indeterminacy.It might be compatible with comp, but then this asks for a nontrivial derivation, and some conspiracy of the numbers.BrunoHi Bruno,Yes, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp,because comp, as currently formulatedWhat do you mean by this. Comp is just a precise version ofmechanism ("yes doctor", + Church thesis).Hi Bruno,I don't think so. There is more to comp than that! You have toappeal to the universe of arithmetic structures and Sigma_1 to buildyour 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`

`done.`

I disagree that they are "unaware of 1p indeterminacy";?They assume a plurality of 1p by assuming many bodies = manyminds.

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 aninfinite number of instances of a body.You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation inarithmetic.Yes.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 theydid not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.How else can it be proven that the infinity of relativeincarnations exists?

`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 pluralityof minds?

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 anyrelations beyond itself?Trivial?I misread your original sentence.

OK.

"Conspiracy of numbers"? Absolutely! But this is true in compalready.?Does not your question of a measure assume the equivalent of aconspiracy 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 aretrue and mutually non-contradictory??The notion of contradiction needs theories. The notion of truthneeds semantics (models).Yeah, you might study some semiotic theory! The problem of thesignified or "meaning" in Semiotics is a nice study of your ideasof Platonism...This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo in Spanish isnice, not sure if you known Spanish....

Make your point, please. Bruno 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 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.