On 10/8/2012 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
<multiplecit...@gmail.com <mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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
Here the translation from Steven MacKenna:
"Only a compound can be beautiful, never anything devoid of parts;
and only a whole; the several parts will have beauty, not in themselves,
but only as working together to give a comely total."
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
Did you watch all 9 parts?
To what extent does beauty exist in the mind of the beholder? As
Dennet points out ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzN-uIVkfjg&t=3m29s
) what we find sweet, beautiful, or cute, we do so because our brains
are wired in a particular way.
Some find certain properties of scientific theories or mathematical
proofs to be particularly beautiful. When they are short, surprising,
elegant, deep, etc. These may or not be attributes of the true TOE.
If they are, then we some might say "that which is the ground for all
existence is beautiful", and some others might take it further and say
"beauty is is the ground of existence".
Whether or not we could ever take it beyond that metaphor, I am less
certain. It may require a rigorous and objective definition of beauty
Please consider exactly what "a rigorous and objective definition"
entails! Does not beauty contain a kernel of irony, of unexpectedness;
something that cannot be reduced to a rigorous definition!
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