On 11/1/2012 6:54 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

    On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:


            One problem that I have discovered (I thank Brent for
            bringing this up!) is that in our reasoning we set up
            constructions - such as the person on the desert island
            - that blur the very distinction that I am trying to
            frame. We should never assume temporal situations to
            argue for relations that are atemporal unless we are
            prepared to show the morphisms between the two situations.

        Isn't this already physical framework when you seem to be
        arguing for time as primitive ("n incompatible with comp to
        begin with, after which you seek to carve out a distinction,
        when you've already mixed at the base?

        My argument is that it is impossible to 'derive" Becoming from
    Being, but we can derive Being from Becoming. So why not work with
    the latter idea? I am trying to get Bruno to admit, among other
    things, that he has to assume a non-well founded logic for his
    result to work.;-)

I see less and less how you'd be able to do that, as I said, by making process/linear time primitive in comp, and by assuming physical universe with so many statements. Quantum Logic is part of the picture (see SANE 2004).

Hi Cowboy,

I think of it this way: Change is fundamental (ala Heraclitus <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/#PhiPri> and Bergson <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/#5>) and Being is its automorphism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automorphism>. Is that a bit more clear? "Linear time" (why 'linear'? Is there such a thing as non-linear time? Cyclic time is still linear, AFAIK...) is, IMHO, change + a measure. Without a measure of change, there is no time; there is just change. If we take relativity seriously, we might even claim that there is no difference between change minus measure and staticness... I should mention that any change that has no measure associated with it is "zeroth" order change. Without the means to compare two different things to each other, does it make any sense to be able to make coherent statements about some change in one relative to the other. If there is just one thing, how do we know anything about its possible change(s) unless we are looking at it and gauging (measuring) its change against some thing else that has some measure associated - but our observation of it violates the stipulation of "if there is just one thing".

The idea that somehow the observer is irrelevant in physics and philosophy is, IMHO, one of the worse errors ever. Sure, we need to minimize and even eliminate observer bias and preferred reference framing, but eliminating the observer and replacing it with some ambiguous 'view from nowhere' is undiluted hogwash. This is where "realist" chafe me, they act as if the universe of objects is out there and has definite properties in the complete absence of any clear explanation for how those properties came to be defined in the first place. OK, OK, I will stop ranting...

            Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to "not assume a
        concrete robust physical universe". He goes on to argue that
        Occam's razor would demand that we reject the very idea of
        the existence of physical worlds given that he can 'show' how
        they can be reconstructed or derived from irreducible - and
        thus ontologically primitive - Arithmetic 'objects' {0, 1, +,
        *} that are "operating" somehow in an atemporal way.

    UDA does not contradict itself here. Restraints on processing
    power, on memory and print capacities, implying time as some
    illusion emanating from eternal primitives, don't exist when
    framed non-constructively, more like sets of assignments, rather
    than operations in your sense, by which you seem to mean
    "physically primitive operations" on par with ontologically
    primitive arrow of time. Isn't this like cracking open the
    axioms, and then complaining that the building has cracks in it?

        There are simply a pile of concepts that are just assumed
    without explanation in any discussion of philosophy/logic/math. My
    point is that a theory must be have the capacity of being
    communicable ab initio for it to even be considered. When I am
    confronted with a theory or a "result" or an argument that seems
    to disallow for communicability I am going to baulk at it!

And the possibility that you are baulking at your preconceptions rather than engaging the theory has never happened to you? Happens to me all the time.

OK, got any ideas what these might be other than those I have mentioned explicitly? Philosophically, I am a Heraclitean, at least, as opposed to a Parmenidean...

        We should be able to make the argument run without ever
        appealing to a Platonic realm or any kind of 'realism'.

    It's hard for me to see bets being made without some
    cash/investment/gap of faith on the table.


Then it would be easy for you to directly address the question: why assume non-comp and then complain about comp's implications of time and physics arising from dream interaction of universal numbers, therefore being not primary or existing primitively?

But I agree with comp up to the strong version of step 8! I accept comp with a weak version of step 8 or, I think equivalently, a weak version of computational universality: /A computation is universal if it is not dependent on any one particular physical system/. This implies, to me, that there is at least one physical system that such a universal computation can be said to actually run on! This goes against the Parmenidean/Platonistic idea of computation as static objects in eternity that are completely independent of physical stuff! This makes me suspicious of the entire idea of ontological "independence" but I digress.

        In my thinking, if arithmetic is powerful enough to be a TOE
        and run the TOE to generate our world, then that power should
        be obvious. My problem is that it looks tooo much like the
        'explanation' of creation that we find in mythology, whether
        it is the Ptah <http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ptah.html> of
        ancient Egypt or the egg of Pangu
        <http://www.livingmyths.com/Chinese.htm> or whatever other
        myth one might like. What makes an explanation framed in the
        sophisticated and formal language of modal logic any different?

    Nothing, at its base. Appearances and looks can deceive, as
    numbers can too.

        Would this not make that deception something in our
    understanding and not the fault of numbers? After all, numbers are
    supposedly the least ambiguous of entities!

On the surface, but not when you look under the hood. That's a reductionist bias of number.

Don't get me started on reductionism! I don't believe in it as I don't believe in ontologically primitive objects that have particular properties.

            I agree 1000000000% with your point about 'miracles'. I
        am very suspicions of "special explanations' or 'natural

    Same here. My point with humanism + natural sciences, including
    standard model, is that you have to be straight about your wager:
    there's my magic primitive right there, warts and all.

    Its deceiving to, on the one hand assert "no miracles"
    whatsoever, and then ask for it at the instant of Big Bang.
    "Human" in this sense is both deceptive through error and useful
    for power.

        I think that we are too eager for explanations and are willing
    to play fast and lose with concepts so long as we can hand wave
    problems away.



          (This comes from my upbringing as a "Bible-believing
        Fundamentalist" and eventual rejection of that literalist
        mental straight-jacket.) As I see things, any condition or
        situation that can be used to 'explain' some other
        conceptually difficult condition or situation should be
        either universal in that they apply anywhere and anytime or
        are such that there must be a particular configuration of
        events for them to occur. This principle (?) applies to
        everything, be it the Big Bang initial state/singularity or

            One point about the Big Bang. It seems to me that if we
        are considering conditions in our current physical universe
        that involve sufficiently small scales and/or high enough
        energies that there should be the equivalent to the Big Bang
        initial conditions, thus the Big Bang should be considered as
        an ongoing process even now and not some epochally special event.

    You argue both comp ("universal, anywhere, eternal") and
    physically primitive universe ("current physical universe",
    "ongoing process" etc).

        It seems to me that we need both to come up with ontological

I don't need to. Others are good at that. Every song I play/write is one ontological theory, that sometimes even kids can grasp and smile at. In ancient Greece, music was a branch of core education. Numbers and geometry were as important as an understanding of harmony. I am not idealizing ancient Greece, nor am I saying math = music.

I have found that those ancient Greeks where just as smart as smart people today.

    That's why I ask above why you burn your money before you put it
    on the (comp) table and claim the game is rigged? Just because
    "eternal is foundation", doesn't imply that process isn't
    possible on some higher level. Your alluding to mysticism points
    towards different ways you can frame temporal and "atemporal"
    systems. There's not "a difference", there are many, which is
    perhaps a fruitful avenue of inquiry.

    I do agree with you on the straight-jacket problem. But extreme
    limitation is also liberating.

        Freedom from is not freedom to.

I'm not saying UD is without problems or possible flaws; but simply fail to understand the flaw you are trying to express.

Again: why burn the basement and complain the building has cracks?

    I'm trying to do exactly not that...



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