Hi Stephen P. King All that we can know of reality is in the experience of "now."
Roger Clough, [email protected] 11/4/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 13:26:12 Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties On 11/3/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:17, Stephen P. King wrote: ?? After I wrote the above I can see how you would think of properties as being innate, I meant independent of us. Not innate in the sense of psychology. Dear Bruno, ?? Please elaborate on what this independence implies that has to do with the definiteness of properties. but I see this as just a mental crutch that you are using to not think too deeply about the concept of property. I garee with what Leibiz said, and what Frege and the logicians have done with it. ?? Any elaboration or link on this? The situation is the same for your difficulty with my hypothesis of meaning. We learn to associate meanings to words so that words are more than just combinations of letters, but this is just the internalization of the associations and relations within our thinking process. You are too much unclear, for me. I can agree and disagree. As long as you don't present your theory it is hard to find out what you mean.? Bruno ?? Please understand that I am still developing my thesis, it is not yet born. It is like a jig-saw puzzle with most of the Big Picture on the box missing... ?? Even today I realized a new piece of the picture, but I don't know how to explain it... It has to do with the way that the duality permutes under exponentiation in Pratt's theory in a way that might be a better way to connect it with comp. ?? The canonical transformation of the duality, in Pratt's theory, is an exact or bijective chain of transformations ... -> body -> mind -> body -> mind -> ... This makes the isomorphism between the Stone spaces and Boolean algebras into a bijective map equivalent to an automorphism. If we consider the transformation for the case there it is almost but not quite bijective, then we get orbits that tend to be near the automorphism, like the orbits of a strange attractor and not exactly periodic in space/time. This can be taken to something like an ergodic map where the orbits of the transformation are never periodic and every body and mind in the chain is different. ? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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.
