# Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

```
On 08 Nov 2012, at 01:42, Stephen P. King wrote:```
```
```
```On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote:

```
```On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:

```
```On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```snip
```
```
```
This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of actions. In physics this is traditionally done by adding one dimension. The action of throwing an apple (action) can easily be associated to a parabola in space-time. This invalidate your point, even if you say that such parabola does not exist, as you will need to beg on the "real action" to make your point.
```
```
```Dear Bruno,

```
So do you agree that the relation goes both ways, which is to say that the relation is symetrical? If the action of throwing an apple implies a parabola, does the existence of the parabola alone define the particular act of throwing the apple?
```
Throwing an apple   ===>   a parabola

But throwing a banana   ====>   a parabola, too.

```
```Dear Bruno,

```
Can you not see that these two relations are not in a symmetrical one-to-one relation? There are many actions that can be represented by one and the same parabola.
```
Then why do you ask me if it is symmetrical. You make my point here.

```
```Hi Bruno,

```
That is not my question. If you agree that the relation is not symmetrical, then how can you use the existence of the parabola to necessitate the particular case (throwing an apple) without further explanation as to how that one special case is selected?
```
```
The parabola is only one feature of a complex event. But my code saved by the doctor does contains all the relevant information for my survival, in the comp theory. And the computation in arithmetic does singularize my mind from the 3p view. Then form the 1p view I have to take into account all computation.
```Your analogy simply does not work.

```
We can show the existence of a general class of entities far easier than the existence of a particular entity!
```
```
Just what I said to say that the MWI assumes less than non-Everett QM. And comp assumes still less than Everett as it forces to derived QM (the SWE) from arithmetic, in a precise way (if we want exploits the G/ G* distinction to get both qualia and quanta).
```
Bruno

```
```
--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
```
```
```
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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

```