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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
