On 08 Nov 2012, at 20:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There are no accidents in Platonia.
There are also perfect parabolas, because
Platonia is the realm of necessary logic,
of pure reason and math, which are inextended.
Hi Roger,
There are no accidents in and all is perfect and there is no
extension or time Platonia because we define Platonia that way.
But if we are to take Platonia as our basic ontological theory we
have a problem, we are unable to explain the necessity of the
imperfect world of matter that has time and is imperfect.
Not at all. After Gödel and Co. we know that "Platonia", or simply
Arithmetic is full of relative imperfections. The machines which
lives in Platonia suffer all from intrinsic limitations. Now, we
know that Platonia contains typhoon, black hole, big bangs, taxes
and death. Platonism is not the same before and after Gödel-Turing.
We can perhaps say that comp admits a more nietzchean reading of
Plato. This could be called neo-neo-platonism, which is
neoplatonism + Church thesis. It is also very pythagorean, as the
numbers can, and have to, be seen in a new perspective.
Hi Bruno,
So why bother with the illusion of a physical world? If
everything "just exists" in Platonia,
No, in platonia only 0, 1, 2, 3, ... exists. The rest of existence,
notably the couplings consciousness realities, exists in a secondary
sense, in Platonia. They are epistemological realities obeying to the
laws of computer science.
why does it need to exist elsewhere? Why have an "elsewhere"?
All the interest of having arithmetic as a TOE relies in the fact that
it explain where the physical reality comes from, and why it divides
into quanta and qualia.
What is it in comp that necessitates the appearance of substances?
That is explained by the UDA reasoning.
The appearance of substances is more like a fact that we have to
explain, once we bet the brain is a machine.
How do the relative values of numbers, which are fixed and eternal
in your thinking, acts as something like a prime mover that projects
or whatever is the proper word you wish to uses to explain the
emanations from Platonia to this realm?
How do you explain the appearance of change from that which is
changeless? You never seem to wish to go over the debate between
Heraclitus and Parmenides and explain why you side with Parmenides.
I start from comp, then I derive consequences.
Then it happens that some mystics seems to have intuited some of those
consequences, without using comp, or using very naïve (pre-Gödelian)
intuition like in the "question of King Milinda".
Now, to be sure, even the "physicist in me" has never taken for
granted the existence of time, and has always felt himself more closer
to Einstein and Hilbert than Prigogine or Brouwer.
But I insist that I am never defending any conception of reality. I
assume we are machine, and then make a reasoning.
Bruno
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
