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

Here the translation from Steven MacKenna:


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.


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