Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason,

Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set
of all partial computable functions and that for Steven "Both abstractions,
such as numbers and their truths, and physical worlds must emerge together
from a primitive ground which is neutral in that it has no innate
properties at all other that necessary possibility. It merely exists."

If so, naively I ask then: Why is beauty, in the imho non-chimeric sense
posed by Plotinus in Ennead I.6 "On Beauty", not a candidate for
approximating that set, or for describing that "which has no innate
properties"?

Here the translation from Steven MacKenna:

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/beauty.htm

Because, what drew me to Zuckerman was just a chance find on youtube... and
seeing "Infinite descending chains, decorations, self-reference etc." all
tied together in a set theory context, I didn't think "Wow, that's true"
but simply "hmm, that's nice, maybe they'll elaborate a more precise
frame." I know, people want to keep separate art and science. But I am
agnostic on this as composing and playing music just bled into engineering
and mathematical problems and solutions, as well as programming and the
computer on their own. I apologize in advance, if this is off-topic as I
find the discussion here fascinating and hate interrupting it.

Mark

-- 
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.

Reply via email to