On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:58:03 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 04:25:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:24, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > 
> > >How do we know that those 3 hypostases exhaust the possibilities for 
> > >logics containing true but incommunicable sentences? 
> > 
> > Who ever said that they exhaust them? 
> > 
> > On the contrary, I have explained once that the 8 hypostases are 
> > really 4 + 4 * infinity hypostases. We get quantization also for the 
> > B^n p & D^t  nuances, which makes the quantum logic graded, and 
> > which I hoped that they could be exploited to get the "Temperley 
> > Lieb" algebra to get the emergence of a physical tridimensional 
> > (quantum) space (but the math get too much complex). 
> > 
> > The 8 hypostases are only the most obvious one, but without G�del 
> > incompleteness we would not have them at all. That's the miracle. 
> > That they exists and that machines can grasp them when looking 
> > inward. 
> > 
>
> Fair enough. 
>
> > 
> > > 
> > >I do think Craig has a point here. 
> > 
> > Craig assumes them. The point is that there can be consequences of 
> > arithmetic + classical theory of knowledge (and/or comp). 
> > 
>
> OK - let me explain what I think Craig's point is (which might be 
> wrong - he's not an easy fellow to understand). 
>
> The ?*/? distinction (replace ? with you favourite letter) is a neat 
> result showing the difference between private (incomunicable) and 
> public discourse. 
>
> Qualia is an example of a private discourse. 
>
> But it does not therefore follow that qualia is explained by one of 
> the eight hypostases we know about. It may be due to another 
> hypostase, or even due to some completely different mechanism giving 
> rise to private/public discourse. 
>

I would go further ans say that it is not possible for qualia to be 
explained by any mechanism or hypostase, since all mechanisms, hypstase, 
forms, functions, laws, logics, inspirations, motivations...every aspect of 
ontology is ultimately qualia (or really the parent of qualia before 
private and public distinction can be made.)

I think that Bruno's version is

Physics follows from experience of math, which follow from particular kinds 
of math.

My version is that physics follows from the mathematical masking of 
experience, with math being the aspect of experience which diagonalizes 
access (diffraction, masking, alienation, entropy, spacetime, attenuation) 
to itself.

Thanks
Craig


> I think where you are on stronger ground with the quantum logics you 
> get from the Goldblatt transform, but even so that still quite 
> speculative. Much needs to be done. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpc...@hpcoders.com.au<javascript:> 
> University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to