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
    innate properties"?

    Here the translation from Steven MacKenna:


Hi Mark,

"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
    interrupting it.

    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 first.


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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to