# Peirce, Kant and Plato simplified

```Peirce, Kant and Plato simplified
```
```
I = Firstness =  time alone = awareness= subject = 1p
II = Secondness = events (space intuition + time) = time dependent functions =
perceiving events = relational = 2p
III = Thirdness = space intution (time independent truths or contents) =
objects = 3p

=======================================================================================

Which are always true and so belong to platonia.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following. The short form is that Peirce's

I = the intuition of time = 1p = t
II = the world of events, which are only true a certain times = event spaces at
times t.
III = the truth or existence of all spaces, considering all time. = the
clombined truth of all event spaces

A moresion is this: Let existence or events be true if they currently exist
(are happening),
and false if not.

1. Firstness, let us say, is simply time or the intuition of consciousness.
It is awareness, the individual observer, before events are perceived (1p).

Firstness = t = consciousness (individual awareness)= 1p
Since no events are involved, T or F is irrelevant.

2. Following Kant's scheme of basic intuitions (space and time),
let me suggest that Secondness is the world of events. Now events consist
of the intuitions of space or content plus time. Events only happen at
specific times, so T if event is happening, F if not.

Secondness = contingency= the world of events, which are only T at specific
times.
Events = intuitions of space + that of time.= contents of space (what happens)
+ time or consciousness (when it happens)

3. Thirdness is platonia where the many become the time-independent One.
This is the world of timeless or eternal truths.

Thirdness = necessity (always true, so time independent) = just the truth or
existence of all events combined as one.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-11-09, 14:36:40
Subject: Re: 15 22 4

On 09 Nov 2012, at 13:50, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

Arithmetic is just numbers.

Not at all. you need laws so that numbers can enter in relation with each
other.

The relation x < y, for example is Ez(x + z = y)
The relation x divides y, for another example is Ez(x* z = y)

So you need + and *, and you need axioms to relate the laws, like

x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1

x *0 = 0
x*(y + 1) = x*y + x

And by G del this will capture a tiny part of the arithmetical truth, but by
Putnam-Davis-Robinson-Matiyasevich (70 years of work by quite talentuopus
logician) that theory can (at least now) easily be shown Turing universal.

They have no meaning
and are (3p) unless observed from a fixed identity (1p).

Yes. But their relations can be such that some 1p emerge. That follows either
by comp, or by the usual definition of knowledge + the incompleteness theorem
(see my papers, but of course this needs some math and computer science to
study)

As proof of that consider these three arithmetic characters from mandarin:

??
???

?

The meanings of these are

15
22
4

But you have to makes sense of the characters before you use them.

Absolutely. Chinese baby will learn that ? is the number of digits handing the
human arm.

In other words, you need a fixed, conscious observer.

Here you made a jump. I agree with you though, but "technically" this might
need elaboration.

Bruno

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/9/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-11-08, 11:00:12
Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust

On 08 Nov 2012, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Stephan,

If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and

distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable fine

structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should

form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others into

itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief-

Indra's Pearls.

If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like

consciousness.

However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary to go

from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno says

C emerges naturally from comp.

More precisely, I say that consciousness and matter emerges from elementary

arithmetic, *once* you bet on comp, that is the idea that the brain or the

body can be Turing emulated at some right level so that you would remain

conscious.

Bruno

And of course what I am hoping as a physicist rather than a
mathematician or logician is that the compact manifolds may be the
basis of the elementary arithmetic from which spacetime, matter (ie.,
strings) and consciousness emerge.

Is it not more elegant if we can derived the strings (which are rather
sophisticated mathematical object) from arithmetic (through computationalism)?

It seems to me that string theory assumes or presumes arithmetic. Indeed it
even assumes that the "sum" (in some sense, 'course) of all natural numbers
gives -1/12. In fact all theories assume the arithmetical "platonia", except
some part of non Turing universal algebraic structures.

However, I do not understand what
it means "to bet on comp".

You bet on comp when you bet that that you can survive with a digital brain (a
computer) replacing the brain.
Comp is just Descartes Mechanism, after the discovery of the universal machine.
The biggest discovery that nature do and redo all the times.

Does the whole shebang collapse if brains
do not exist?

No.

But brains cannot not exist, as they exist, in some sense, already in
arithmetic. The whole shebang is a sharable dream. I call the computer
universal number to help people to keep their arithmetical existence in mind.
I will say more in FOAR asap. You can find my papers on that subject from my
URL, but don't hesitate to ask any question, even on references. The simplest,
concise, yet complete (with the references!) paper is this one:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Simply state, what I say is that consciousness *and* matter (physics) is in
your head, a bit like the mystics. But then I show a constructive version of
that statement allowing any Universal machine to derived physics by looking
inward, and then we can compare the comp-physics (the physics in the head of
the universal Turing machine) with empirical physics, so that we can test comp.

Bruno

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Stephen P. King

Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust

On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Time and space don't exist as substances so

they don't influence the monads, which as you say

are eternal. Further, there is no "substance space".

So the monads are not organized in any way.

The monads can be thought of as a collection

of an infinite number of mathematical points.

>From dust we come and to dust we shall return.

Hi Roger,

The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a

'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean

algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other

monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that

the classical universe is "atoms in a void" as taught by Democritus.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html

What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The

evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow

of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean

algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous

states. These two arrows face in opposite directions

... A => A' Stone space

| |

....A*<=A*' Boolean algebra

The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

11/8/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King

Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19

Subject: Re: Communicability

On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the

views of all of the other monads in order to see

the whole, not from just one perspective.

Hi Roger,

Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't agree

with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that

their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a

special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created

nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the

co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to be an

eternal action and not a special one time action.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

11/7/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King

Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30

Subject: Re: Communicability

On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman

for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an

actual woman ?

Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates

for actual gold coins ?

Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ?

It is not just about you. It is about the huge number of observers. What

matters is that they can communicate with each other and mutually

confirm what is "real". Why do you imagine that only humans can be

observers?

--

Onward!

Stephen

--

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

--

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

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

--
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

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

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