On 11/9/2012 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is exactly my question! How does Platonism show the
contingent to be necessary? As far as I have found, it cannot show
necessity of the contingent. In the rush to define the perfect, all
means to show the necessity of contingency was thrown out. This is
why I propose that we define existence as necessary possibility; we
have contingency built into our ontology in that definition. ;-)
In which modal logic?
What you say directly contradict Gödel's theorem, which shows, at
many different levels the necessity of the possible. We even get
that for all (true) sigma_1 sentences (the "atomic events in the UD
execution) p -> <>p, that is the truth of p implies the necessity
of the possibility of p, with p = either the box of the universal
soul (S4Grz1), or the box of the intelligible or sensible matter
(Z1* and X1*). The modal logics becomes well defined, and allows, in
Platonia, all the imperfections that you can dream of (which of
course is not necessarily a good news).
How is it that you can write a wonderful passage (reposted below)
in a poetic tone, dipping down into precision and rigorous detail and
I can understand it and yet if I write in a similar tone, it washes
over you like an solid wave of noise.
I don't know. I understand a paragraph, or I do not.
It seems that you are subconsciously assuming that I do not know
what I am saying. You see my words and they are just a 'word salad' in
your mind. OK. You never ask me what I mean by certain wordings, why is
The real shock with "modern" comp is that now we know that even
heaven is not perfect. It contains many doors to hell. And vice
versa: Hell contains doors to heaven. The main difference is that it
is easy to find a door to hell in paradise, and it is hard to find a
door to paradise in hell. And there is a large fuzzy frontier
The idea that arithmetical platonia is perfect is a rest of
Hilbert's dream (or nightmare as some call it). With comp even God
is not perfect. "He" is overwhelmed by the Noùs, and then the
"universal soul" put a lot of mess in the whole.
At least we can understand the fall of the soul, and the origin of
matter. Matter is where God lost completely control, and that's why
the Greek Platonists can easily identify matter with evil.
It is the price of Turing universality. The existence of *partial*
computable function, and, with comp, of processes which escapes all
theories. The happy consequences is that, by such phenomena, life
and consciousness resist to normative and reductionist thinking. The
universal machine is born universal dissident.
You demand from your critics far more than you demand of yourself.
I just try to understand. Perhaps you did contradict yourself too much.
Maybe I am not contradicting myself. Maybe the contradictions are
in your mind because your definitions of the words that I am using are
not mutually coherent. You should think of me as someone that speaks in
a different language and you are tryign to understand what I am saying.
This is how I approach your work... Could you do the same for my work?
I am trying to extend your beautiful work, not to rubbish it or heap
derision on it.
No, you criticized the main point all the time, like if you were
closer to Craig's view.
Could you quote something that I wrote to that effect? I do agree
with Craig's ideas because I understand them. I have spent many hours
talking to Craig on the phone and found his ideas very meritorious
I respect all views, so this is not a problem.
No, you do not. You only respect the word of others that echo your
own. My proof of this is in the fact that you never try to understand
some difficult and subtle points that I am trying to argue. You never
quote something I wrote and try to rephrase it as you might think it
would make sense to you. You just write "???".
But when people are wrong, I told them, politely.
Sure, a nice Wittgensteinian approach. HA HA!
Craig is consistent as it assumes non-comp. You are not.
No and no.
You keep saying that you accept comp, but then you do a vague theory
in which 1p, matter and even time seems to be assumed at the start,
contradicting the consequences of the UDA. Anyone having even just a
passive understanding of the UDA can see that there is a problem there.
This is wrong and even the opposite of what I am arguing! I take
the argument of comp and stop at step 8 and try to reconstruct a
necessary reason for the appearance of a physical world for some large
but finite number of observer, where each observer is defined as a sheaf
of an infinite number of computations. My reason for stopping at step 8
of the UDA is that I see it as deeply problematic because it does to the
physical world exactly what Dennett tries to do with the mind. The
elimination of the assumption of a physical world in the argument
reduces it to a causally ineffective illusion and thus causes the
arithmetic body problem. A corollary problem that step 8 induces is the
implied vanishing of the ability to communicate between minds. You
simply refuse to see the problem.
It seems that you don't understand the UDA.
No, you fail to understand that I can and do understand the UDA and
disagree with its conclusion.
Indeed you talk about flaw, and then you never show it,
I never show it in the language of formal symbolic modal logic.
Touche, yes. But why do I need to? I am trying to appeal to your
intuitions, trying to get you to understand a subtle argument that I do
not know how to formally state.
you just point on your different opinion, and you just provide links
like if I should read them to find a flaw.
No, I provide links for people to read if they wish to know more
about a particular idea that I am appealing to.
But this is not a valid way to proceed. Whatever *you* can read and
which can help you to find the flaw, should help *you* to find it.
This would be a good criticism if I was guilty of not understanding
If it is genuine, I will recognize it, even without reading anything
Not a humble statement!
In science there is just no disagreement, except on axioms or
theories. If you believe there is an error, you have to find it and
make it clear to everybody.
Pointing on your different conception of reality is not the same as
finding a flaw in a reasoning.
Do you admit to the reality of the arithmetic body problem? Do you
have an explanation of how multiple minds can distinguish themselves
from each other and interact with each other such that they can gain new
knowledge? I see no evidence of this in your papers.
Could you be a bit more equanimous
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Equanimous> with your interpretations?
I think that you might be confusing science and a certain type of
philosophy. Convince yourself that you can explain your basic idea to
a 14 years old, without any jargon.
I can. I have explained my ideas to several people and they seem to
understand it well. I have yet to find a 14 year old that understands
what an equivalence is without a lot of explanation. Some people seem to
have a very hard problem understanding abstract concepts or that numbers
exist independent of particular physical examples of them or to think
about their own thoughts.
UDA is already a way to explain AUDA without jargon, somehow, and I
have tested fro years on many people, and defended it, with AUDA, as a
thesis in computer science, without any problem of understanding. My
opponents; literary philosophers, have only attacked me on things that
I have never said, and they have their own agenda, unrelated with the
topic. I have published everything in the eighties, and as a political
opponents to the rule "publish of perish" I publish only when people
asked, and insisted.
I have no wish to join those Sophists and Scholastics that are
I am equanimous, but I am a scientist dedicated to rigor and
precision, and I am working in a field sick of wishful thinking, vague
thinking, and a lot of politics, since *many* centuries, and probably
in conflict with old brain subroutine, which explains the
difficulties, for many.
No, bruno. Science requires the assumption that a physical world
exists. You are a theoretical logician, not a scientist.
You have just to work more on the clarity issue. You were just
contradicting yourself once more in this post, as you keep saying
there is a flaw, and now you say that you want to extend the work.
Sorry but this does not make sense. I talk frankly. Take it as a mark
To solve the problem of arithmetic bodies you fist need to see why
there is a problem.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at