Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 01 Aug 2012, at 17:11, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/1/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jul 2012, at 20:28, Stephen P. King wrote: Your statement here demonstrates that I have entirely failed to communicate my thoughts so that you could understand them. You are arguing again

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 8/1/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jul 2012, at 20:28, Stephen P. King wrote: Your statement here demonstrates that I have entirely failed to communicate my thoughts so that you could understand them. You are arguing against a straw man. What you write here as "Stephen's ide

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 31 Jul 2012, at 20:28, Stephen P. King wrote: Your statement here demonstrates that I have entirely failed to communicate my thoughts so that you could understand them. You are arguing against a straw man. What you write here as "Stephen's idea" is as Wolfgang Pauli might say: "not

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Dear Bruno, Your statement here demonstrates that I have entirely failed to communicate my thoughts so that you could understand them. You are arguing against a straw man. What you write here as "Stephen's idea" is as Wolfgang Pauli might say: "not even wrong". I am proposing that number

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 31 Jul 2012, at 14:36, David Nyman wrote: On 31 July 2012 11:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: With comp, I argue that arithmetical truth is simpler and can explain why the numbers (or better the person associated to those numbers) construct ideas of time and space, and why they can believe i

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 31 July 2012 11:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: With comp, I argue that arithmetical truth is simpler and can explain why > the numbers (or better the person associated to those numbers) construct > ideas of time and space, and why they can believe in some genuine way in > them, and be deluded in bel

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 30 Jul 2012, at 16:20, David Nyman wrote: On 30 July 2012 13:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: If we are removing ourselves from the object of our study we must remove all things that are implied. It is the observer that acts, not the object alone. All of the properties, such as reflexivity,

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/30/2012 10:20 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 30 July 2012 13:11, Bruno Marchal > wrote: If we are removing ourselves from the object of our study we must remove all things that are implied. It is the observer that acts, not the object alone. Al

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 30 July 2012 13:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: If we are removing ourselves from the object of our study we must remove >> all things that are implied. It is the observer that acts, not the object >> alone. All of the properties, such as reflexivity, transitivity, symmetry, >> do freeze and cease

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/27/2012 6:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 25-juil.-12, à 07:01, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/24/2012 1:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/22/2012 2:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Many (as implied by the word plural) is not just a number. (It is at

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 26-juil.-12, à 05:06, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/25/2012 4:18 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012  Stephen P. King wrote:   > This lack of uniqueness [of Godel numbering] is a huge weakness! A huge weakness in regard to what? It certainly does not weaken Godel's proof! A God

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 25-juil.-12, à 08:37, Russell Standish a écrit : On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:41:29PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/22/2012 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Usually I restrict "substance" for physicalist primitive ontology, like atoms, particles or strings, which does not exist primitivel

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 25-juil.-12, à 07:01, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/24/2012 1:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/22/2012 2:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:    Many (as implied by the word plural) is not just a number. (It is at least a Gödel number.) A plurality of 1p is a mapping function from some domai

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 24-juil.-12, à 19:07, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/24/2012 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 23-juil.-12, à 20:30, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/23/2012 6:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If this is relevant for UDA, you should show to me. You start from an assumption of some primitive ph

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/25/2012 4:18 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 Stephen P. King > wrote: > This lack of uniqueness [of Godel numbering] is a huge weakness! A huge weakness in regard to what? It certainly does not weaken Godel's proof! A Godel number is just a

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 Stephen P. King wrote: > This lack of uniqueness [of Godel numbering] is a huge weakness! > A huge weakness in regard to what? It certainly does not weaken Godel's proof! A Godel number is just a name given to a well formed symbol or sentence in a formal logical system, a

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/25/2012 11:36 AM, John Mikes wrote: Posted to I admire you, Stephen, for writing with such ease about Gödel etc. Dear John, Thanks, I must confess that I am mostly flying by the seat of my pants on this. I welcome any critique whatsoever so long as I can correct errors and learn so

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Dear John, I too like Russell's idea and reasoning. I would only add that Physical phenomena is not derivable from single the first person accounts as there is no way to break the symmetry that this implies (this is the problem of solipsism!). We have to consider a large number of inter-c

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Dear Russell, your "urstuff" is a nice belief, like my "infinite complexity". I feel your remark is not contradictory to my viewing. - YET: I am still uncomfortable with 'ontology' what I imagine as the description of the "AS IS" state in a constantly changing world. Being vs. becoming, a snapshot

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Posted to I admire you, Stephen, for writing with such ease about Gödel etc. - in my agnosticism I would say: "many' MAY refer to a wider cumulative complexity of similar coomplexities (like the machine Bruno would call "us") and I never tried to identify myself (us? humans?) for Bruno's view). Sin

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:41:29PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 7/22/2012 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >Usually I restrict "substance" for physicalist primitive ontology, > >like atoms, particles or strings, which does not exist primitively > >in the comp theory, but should be derived

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/24/2012 1:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/22/2012 2:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Many (as implied by the word plural

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/24/2012 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 23-juil.-12, à 20:30, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/23/2012 6:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If this is relevant for UDA, you should show to me. You start from an assumption of some primitive physical reality. Dear Bruno, Could you please expl

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 23-juil.-12, à 20:30, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/23/2012 6:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If this is relevant for UDA, you should show to me. You start from an assumption of some primitive physical reality. Dear Bruno, Could you please explain to me why it is that you make this claim

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/23/2012 6:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If this is relevant for UDA, you should show to me. You start from an assumption of some primitive physical reality. Dear Bruno, Could you please explain to me why it is that you make this claim in spite of repeated explanation that show the contr

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 22-juil.-12, à 21:10, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/22/2012 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-juil.-12, à 20:04, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/21/2012 7:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Stephen, I appreciate very much Louis Kauffman, including that paper. But I don't see your poi

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 22-juil.-12, à 20:41, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/22/2012 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-juil.-12, à 19:57, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/21/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 21:46, Stephen P. King a écrit : Dear Bruno,     I need to slow down and ju

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/22/2012 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-juil.-12, à 19:57, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/21/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 21:46, Stephen P. King a écrit : Dear Bruno, I need to slow down and just address this questio

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. And it is here that "conventional physics" has a problem, for to relate observations with perceptions they rely on the physical supervenience thesis, which does no more work when comp is assumed. It is only a problem in that the explanatio

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 21-juil.-12, à 20:04, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/21/2012 7:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Stephen, I appreciate very much Louis Kauffman, including that paper. But I don't see your point. Nothing there seems to cast any problem for comp or its consequences. Why not read the MGA t

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 21-juil.-12, à 19:57, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/21/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 21:46, Stephen P. King a écrit : Dear Bruno,     I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. And it is here that "conventional physics" has a problem, for to relate observations with perceptions they rely on the physical supervenience thesis, which does no more work when comp is assumed. It is only a problem in that the explanation is in

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/21/2012 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote: On 7/15/2012 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > your [SPK] argument above cannot work. For in Darwin the observer emerges from computations too, even is physical. On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wro

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/21/2012 7:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Stephen, I appreciate very much Louis Kauffman, including that paper. But I don't see your point. Nothing there seems to cast any problem for comp or its consequences. Why not read the MGA threads directly, and address the points specifically?

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/21/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 21:46, Stephen P. King a écrit : Dear Bruno, I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other. On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, B

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/15/2012 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > your [SPK] argument above cannot work. For in Darwin the observer emerges > from computations too, even is physical. > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > You are still thinking in reductionist and well-founded terms, > Th

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

Le 20-juil.-12, à 20:02, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason,     The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent and not necessary. The contingency (or dependence in the weaker case) on the capacity of "having object

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Hi Stephen, I appreciate very much Louis Kauffman, including that paper. But I don't see your point. Nothing there seems to cast any problem for comp or its consequences. Why not read the MGA threads directly, and address the points specifically? Bruno Le 20-juil.-12, à 05:34, Stephen P.

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 19-juil.-12, à 21:46, Stephen P. King a écrit : Dear Bruno,     I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other. On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: At this stage I will ask you to defin

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/20/2012 5:06 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/20/2012 12:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/20/2012 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent and not necessary. The conti

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/20/2012 12:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/20/2012 2:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent and not necessary. The contingency (or dependence in the weaker cas

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/20/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, The problem that I see with this definition is that it makes existence contingent and not necessary. The contingency (or dependence in the weaker case) on the capacity of "having objective properties that could be studied by independe

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/20/2012 11:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 7/19/20

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King >> wrote: >> >>> To fix

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: To fix a ty

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: To fix a ty

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> To fix a typo >> >> On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> Dear Bruno, >> >> I need to slow down and just addres

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: To fix a typo On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it s

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > To fix a typo > > On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > Dear Bruno, > > I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems > to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other. > > On 7/19/

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)

To fix a typo On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other. On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: At this stage I will ask you to de

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Dear Bruno, I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other. On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: At this stage I will ask you to define "physical". The physical is the represented as the

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

Le 17-juil.-12, à 19:23, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/15/2012 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the followin

Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA

On 7/15/2012 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/14/2012 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: