Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > ​> ​ > you inserted a "how laws of physics work" which I did not say. I said > "physics". > Your distinction between ​ how the laws of physics works and how physics works elude me. ​ > ​> ​ > Describing physics, and

Re: 9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

Hi Peter, I think it's quite clear you're a fellow neo-platonist :) Your ideas touch many things that have been discussed on this mailing list throughout the years, especially Bruno Marchal's ideas. You diverge in many ways too. Just a couple of things that caught my attention: If I understand

Re: 9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

Ok, Peter, thanks. Your concept reminds me a bit of a relational database, on, maybe, a cosmological level? Thanks for your quick response. Mitch -Original Message- From: Peter Sas To: Everything List Sent: Tue, Jun 21,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:26 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> You misread my point, everyone knows mathematics can *describe* physics, >> what I said was Bruno shows how mathematics can

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > You misread my point, everyone knows mathematics can *describe* physics, > what I said was Bruno shows how mathematics can *explain* physics. > Meaning, why the physical laws have the form they have, > ​Your

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > If mathematics was a language, there would not be any open problem in pure > mathematics. > ​ Sure there would be, nobody can give a description of anything ​in any language ​ if ​they don't know what the thing

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:29 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Bruno has shown that arithmetic is a viable candidate for explaining >> physics: >> > > ​ > Bruno wasn't > ​ ​ > the first to

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > Bruno has shown that arithmetic is a viable candidate for explaining > physics: > ​ Bruno wasn't ​ ​ the first to discover that, ​ ​ people have ​ ​ known for ​ ​ 400 years ​ ​ that mathematics is the best language

Re: 9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

Mitch, I don't now if my 'theory' (I hesitate to call it that) implies an afterlife. I certainly think there is an immortal core to each empirical individual self-consciousness, but this core is trans-individual, the one Absolute Self-Awareness in which we all share... Wether this immortality

Re: 9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

Peter, this is the stupidest response you will ever read, this day, if not for always, but if your consciousness, + digital philosophy + computability, provides the plausibility for an afterlife (blink blink) then you have my attention. Which is probably akin, in value, to having used chewing

9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

Hi everybody, I wrote a blog piece where I combine absolute idealism ('all of reality is one self-consciousness') with digital physics and computability theory: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2016/06/9-remarks-on-absolute-idealism-20_32.html I would love to hear your critical

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 20 Jun 2016, at 19:31, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of reductionism and explaination. "Is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 21 Jun 2016, at 03:44, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:26 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? Valid questions. As you