On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:58, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 04 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Terren Suydam wrote: >> > > OK, so given a certain interpretation, some scholars added two hypostases > to the original three. > > > It is very natural to do. The ennead VI.1 describes the three "initial > hypostases", and the subject of what is matter, notably the intelligible > matter and the sensible matter, is the subject of the ennead II.4. > > It is a simplification of vocabulary, more than another interpretation. > > > > Then, it appears that you make a third interpretation by splitting the > intellect, and the two matters. > > What justifies these splits? > > > I am not sure I understand? Plotinus splits them too, as they are > different subject matter. The "intellect" is the nous, the worlds of idea, > and here the world of what the machine can prove (seen by her, and by God: > G and G*). > But matter is what you can predict with the FPI, and so it is a different > notion, and likewise, in Plotinus, matter is given by a platonist rereading > of Aristotle theory of indetermination. This is done in the ennead II-4. > Why should we not split intellect and matter, which in appearance are very > different, and the problem is more in consistently relating them. If we > don't distinguish them, we cannot explain the problem of relating them. > > Sorry, my question was ambiguous. What I mean is that after adding the two hypostases for the two "matters", you have five hypostases, the initial three plus the two for matter. Then, you arrive at 8 hypostases by splitting the intellect into two, and you do the same for each of the matter hyspostases. My question is what plain-language rationale justifies creating these three extra hypostases? And can we really say we're still talking about Plotinus's hypostases at this point? Terren > > > And can you make this justification in plain language in a way that > doesn't appear to be a "just so" interpretation that makes it easier for > AUDA to go through? > > > God, or the One, is played by the notion of Arithmetical Truth. Machines > and humans cannot know it, or explore it "mechanically", and it is the > roots of the web of machines dreams, but also of their semantics, in a > large part. > The Nous, is what machine can prove about themselves, and their remation > with God, etc. > The Soul, is where the machine proves true things, but not accidentally: > as it is defined by the conjunction of p and the provability of p, for any > (arithmetical) p. It is the idea of Theaetetus, that Plotinus might use > implicitly (according to Bréhier), and which just works: it give a logic of > an unameable, non-machine, knower. > > For matter; you want that the "measure one" for an event/proposition is > certain, when it is true in all consistent continuation (this asks for []p, > technically), but also, by incompleteness, this asks fro the diamond <>t > (consistency, having a model, having at least one continuation, not > belonging to a cul-de-sac world (all those things are mathematically > equivalent in our setting). So prediction 1 (like the coffee-cup in the > WM-duplication + promise of coffee made at both reconstitution place) would > be []coffee & <>coffee. There is a coffee in all my extensions, and there > is at least one extension (the act of faith made explicit). > So the logic of physical "yes" is given by []p & <>t, with p sigma_1 (to > get the restriction on the universal dovetailing). That corresponds to > Plotinus theory of the intelligible matter, and that gives a pair of > "quantum logic" (by applying a result of Goldblatt). > The same with the sensible matter, where we replay the original idea of > Theatetus, on intelligible matter. > > Actually, we get also a quantum logic with the first application of the > Theaetetus, which put some light perhaps why Plotinus ascribe the roots of > matter already to the soul activity. I thought at first that arithmetic > would refute that idea of Plotinus, but the math confirms this. > > I will have to go, and will be slowed down more and more, as I have the > June exams now. Feel free to ask any question though. But you might need to > be patient for the comment/answers. > > Bruno > > > > > > Terren > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
