On 12/28/2012 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2012, at 13:53, Roger Clough wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about 3p.
But according to Leibniz, 1p is always in God's eye,
but our personal pov is never undistorted or perfectly clear,
and operates down here, which is why I classified it as
3p have necessities and contingencies, but they have also their divine
and terrestrial aspect. Here, Divine just means True, and Terrestrial
just means effectively believed (and true as I study ideally correct
Thank you for this post! I still have hope that your ideas will
filter down to the engineers. ;-)
So there is an OUTER GOD, which is the ONE, and which is 3p, in the
comp theory, as it is the collection of true arithmetical propositions.
This is an important definition, but one has to be careful *not* to
treat the One as an observer. Most realists, ISTM, treat this One as an
observer and a source of 3p truth, but there is no such thing in the
absence of the knower, the "inner god".
There is a knower, and it is the INNER GOD, it is the one "available"
in the mystical experience. For the ideally correct machine it is both
terrestrial and divine (S4Grz = S4Grz*).
OK. This makes consciousness seem to be an ontological primitive! I
argue that this is an illusion since if we try to define the inner god
as a 1p and isolate, it becomes such that cannot be even named.
The Noùs, i.e. the "accessible" 3p, and the Matter splits into divine
and terrestrial parts.
This is where Pratt's dual aspects show up, no?
Eventually we get 8 person points of view, which gives 8 ways to see
arithmetical truth from inside:
TRUTH (outer God)
INTELLIGIBLE (by Man) INTELLIGIBLE (by God) 3p
SOUL (inner God)
Intelligible MATTER (by Man) Intelligible MATTER (by God) 3p
sensible MATTER (by Man) sensible MATTER (by God) 1p
This sum up an interpretation of Plotinus in term of the naturally
existing intensional variant of self-reference. This gives eight
if Gödel's incompleteness theorem was false, or if Church thesis was
false, the 8 hypostases would collapse into effective truth. But
things are not that easy for the machine looking inward.
But we can "slow" the collapse by linking computations to physical
implementation. This is where you and I seem to collide in our thinking.
:_( I think it is merely a mutual lack of understanding...
I have no 2p, as I am not studying the private life of couples of
Ah, but it is in couples that we recover finite context and,
ultimately engineering. I wish to discuss with you the cyclic gossiping
idea that I use, it gives us a nice semi-formal model to examine the
effects of interactions between pairs of machines in a combinatorial way.
See, for instance
Gossiping and broadcasting are two problems of information dissemination
described for a group of individuals connected by a communication
network. In gossiping, every person in the network knows a unique item
of information and needs to communicate it to everyone else. In
broadcasting, one individual has an item of information which needs to
be communicated to everyone else. A variation of gossiping, called
cyclic gossiping, recently introduced by Liestman and Richards, is
studied here for certain classes of graphs."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at