Hi Stephen P. King  

All that we can know of reality is in the experience of "now."

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
"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 

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 

?? 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.? 


?? 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. 



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