On 10 Nov 2012, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You take as a weakness of comp the fact that it reduce the mind-
body problem to a body problem, but it is its main qualitative
advantage, as it explains how and where the physical laws can come
from,
On 10 Nov 2012, at 00:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/9/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Nov 2012, at 00:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 6:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meeker
On 11/10/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You take as a weakness of comp the fact that it reduce the mind-body problem to a body
problem, but it is its main qualitative advantage, as it explains how and where the
physical laws can come from, and this in a testable way, making comp scientific
On 09 Nov 2012, at 20:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/9/2012 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
This is wrong and even the opposite of what I am arguing! I take
the argument of comp and stop at step 8 and try to reconstruct a
necess
King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:33:28
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/9/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Contingent ordering is what happens to perfection, given time.
Because of entropy.
But nobody knows why.
Care to advance an explanation as t
hing-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.
No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
"perfectly lined up&q
especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:33:28
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/9/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Contingen
rom: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.
No explanation at all is given as
On 11/9/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Nov 2012, at 00:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 6:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
So how does Platonia's perfect necessary classes
On 11/9/2012 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
That is exactly my question! How does Platonism show the
contingent to be necessary? As far as I have found, it cannot show
necessity of the
On 11/9/2012 11:36 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I fall back on my experiment with crackers.
Nothing stays perfect if allowed to be free and
time passes.
Hi Roger,
My problem is the assumption of an initial perfection. It is never
explained!
Boltzmann's theorem S = k ln(
On 11/9/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Contingent ordering is what happens to perfection, given time.
Because of entropy.
But nobody knows why.
Care to advance an explanation as to why? "Just because it has to
be that way" is not an explanation.
--
Onward!
Steph
On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.
No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
"perfectly lined up". ... Right.
That's Platonia.
Now invert the box and let the crackers
On 09 Nov 2012, at 00:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 6:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
So how does Platonia's perfect necessary classes restrain or
contain this world of contingenc
ist
Time: 2012-11-09, 11:09:32
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 08 Nov 2012, at 20:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/8/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
On 08 Nov 2012, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
That is exactly my question! How does Platonism show the
contingent to be necessary? As far as I have found, it cannot show
necessity of the contingent. In the rush to define the perf
ver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 14:17:05
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/8/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> T
tries/statphys-Boltzmann/
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/9/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 14:17:05
Subject: Re: Communicabi
---
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 08:45:18
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/8/2012 6:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
>
> So how does Platonia's perfect necessary classes restrain or
> contain this world of contingenc
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/9/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 08:42:12
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/8/2012 6:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 20:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There are no accidents in Platonia.
There are also perfect parabolas, because
Platonia
oody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 08:34:19
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/8/2012 6:23 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Libertarians aren't weird.
> They're e
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 6:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
So how does Platonia's perfect necessary classes restrain or
contain this world of contingency ? Or does it ?
Hi Roger,
That is exactly my
On 11/8/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
That is exactly my question! How does Platonism show the
contingent to be necessary? As far as I have found, it cannot show
necessity of the contingent. In the rush to define the perfect, all
means to show the necessity of contingency w
On 11/8/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/8/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There are no accidents in Platonia.
There are also perfect parabolas, because
Platonia is the realm of necessary logic,
of pure reason and
Time: 2012-11-07, 13:19:38
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Again: we are still left without an explanation as to how the
accidental coincidence of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of
the world occurs.
Why do you write 'accidental'? Pla
near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:45:05
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 1:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Again: we are still left w
lough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/8/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 13:19:38
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:45:05
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 1:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Again: we are still left without an explanation as to how
rever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:38:28
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:13, Stephen P.
rehend the real world. :_(
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/8/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:17:21
Subject: Re: Communicability
O
nt -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 13:19:38
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Again: we are still left without an explanation as to how the accidental
coincidence of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of the world o
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:45:05
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 1:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Again: we are still left without an explanatio
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:38:28
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2012 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Arithmetic explains why they are o
n P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:17:21
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 12:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> Being a conservative, however, I tend to adopt orthodox views
> such as that of Leibn
On 08 Nov 2012, at 01:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic explains why they are observers and how and why they
make theories.
Dear Bruno,
This is a v
On 11/7/2012 1:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Again: we are still left without an explanation as to how the
accidental coincidence of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of the
world occurs.
Why do you write 'accidental'? Platonia is our invention to desc
On 11/7/2012 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic explains why they are observers and how and why they make
theories.
Dear Bruno,
This is a vacuous statement, IMHO. Absent the prior existence of
OK but only within limited domains.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 11:02:01
Subject: Re: Commu
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an
actual woman ?
Or mistake fool's gold or gol
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Again: we are still left without an explanation as to how the accidental coincidence
of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of the world occurs.
Why do you write 'accidental'? Platonia is our invention to describe classes of facts by
abstractin
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic explains why they are observers and how and why they
make theories.
Dear Bruno,
This is a vacuous statement, IMHO. Absent the prior existence of
entities capable of counting there is no
On 11/7/2012 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 00:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 11:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Even Berkeley had to admit that no forest, no whatever..
was foolishness and so said that in that case, God
observed it. Get real.
Hi R
Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 11:02:01
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 9:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Your criticism might be valid, but I never made the claim that Berkeley
is sa
Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
> for the real thing, thus turning,
On 11/7/2012 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic explains why they are observers and how and why they make
theories.
Dear Bruno,
This is a vacuous statement, IMHO. Absent the prior existence of
entities capable of counting there is no such thing as Arithmetic. Your
belief to the contrar
-
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:12:43
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 11:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Even Berkeley had to admit that no forest, no whatever..
was foolishness and so said that in that case, God
observed it.
t claiming that We are God?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 10:35:37
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:02, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, "if a t
Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:12:43
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 11:01
On 06 Nov 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Sirius was there before Paul was born.
That position is called realism.
Hi Roger,
On 11/7/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Nov 2012, at 03:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/5/2012 8:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Even with the Theaetetus’ definition of truth, which I find to
be highly original and amazingly ingenious, we are still left
without an explanation as to how
On 06 Nov 2012, at 03:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/5/2012 8:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Even with the Theaetetus’ definition of truth, which I find to
be highly original and amazingly ingenious, we are still left
without an explanation as to how the accidental coincidence of a
Platon
On 11/6/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
So that by believing that God exists, He exists ?
Or believing that 2 + 2 = 5 makes it so ?
Do you understand what mutual consistency is? This is not rocket-surgery!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you a
On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an
actual woman ?
Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates
for actual gold coins ?
Does the world actually become cloudy i
On 11/6/2012 11:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
How about those that are deaf, dumb and blind ?
They've never seen the moon for example.
Hi Roger,
Can they not feel the effects of the tide? Any interaction acts to
define definiteness of properties. You need to think in big
." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 10:35:37
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 4:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, let me rephrase the question. If a tree
falls in the forest with
Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 11:16:51
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 9:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> My new understanding of realism is that
> according to it, what happens in this world is
> not created by our minds, b
On 11/6/2012 9:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Stephen,
My new understanding of realism is that
according to it, what happens in this world is
not created by our minds, but created by a
higher power. It could have happened
without us.
Hi Roger,
Sure, I would agree if we could be more precise.
racts ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 11:02:49
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11
Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 10:57:00
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
&g
eiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 10:35:37
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 4:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> OK, let me rephrase the question. If a tree
> falls in the forest with nobo
On 11/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, "if a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is there to hear it
On 11/6/2012 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Sirius was there before Paul was born.
That position is called realism.
Hi Roger,
What makes you so sure? Realism assumes infallibili
, rclo...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 22:00:20
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 2:30 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi
...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 08:29:30
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:10, Stephen P. King wro
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, "if a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is there to hear it, would it
make a sound?"
A realist (such a
On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Sirius was there before Paul was born.
That position is called realism.
Hi Roger,
What makes you so sure? Realism assumes infallibility!
What
You confuse the truth that
following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 22:00:20
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 2:30 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> A tape recorder could prove your theory wrong.
A tape recorder is an exampl
.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 11:10:06
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Ro
On 11/5/2012 8:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Even with the Theaetetus' definition of truth, which I find to be highly original
and amazingly ingenious, we are still left without an explanation as to how the
accidental coincidence of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of the world occurs. Yo
Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 11:10:06
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
> expl
e: 2012-11-05, 11:07:17
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 10:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> 1) I don't understand your application of "infinite regress"
> to the One. The One is something like an intellectual white hole
> from which all comes, to invent a descr
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, "if a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is there to hear it, would it
make a sound?"
A realist (such as me) would say "yes."
The logician in me would
On 11/5/2012 10:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) I don't understand your application of "infinite regress"
to the One. The One is something like an intellectual white hole
from which all comes, to invent a description.
Hi Roger,
Let us think a bit about this. Does anything exist that could ac
11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 10:17:26
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi
do not.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 10:20:30
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/5/2012 9:
On 11/5/2012 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
A truth exists dependent only on the One, who
creates all truth.
That is acceptable only if we allow it to have an infinite regress.
I like infinite regress but we cannot have pathological regress (such as
free lunches and fre
On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Sirius was there before Paul was born.
That position is called realism.
Hi Roger,
What makes you so sure? Realism assumes infallibility!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 16:09:39
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/4/2012 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But you are exactly missing the p
On 11/4/2012 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The body problem *is* the result, and does constitute the conceptual
explantion of why we believe in bodies, despite the lack of it in
the ontology.
Well, do you want this problem to be solvable?
Sure. And AUDA is a beginning of the solution,
On 11/4/2012 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you are exactly missing the point that I have been repeating.
Truth is independent of a particular mind but it is not independent
of all minds.
This is ambiguous, as Arithmetical Truth contains the existence of all
mind, and even in the "rig
On 11/2/2012 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 22:34, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain",
"solve", "interacting" and "
On 01 Nov 2012, at 22:34, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain",
"solve", "interacting" and " emulating", mean in an atemporal
setting?
On 11/1/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain",
"solve", "interacting" and " emulating", mean in an atemporal
setting? You are mixing temporal and atemporal ideas. ...
S
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
togeth
On 10/31/2012 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
How do you explain the communicability of the
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
How do you explain the communicability of the meaning of these
axioms? You have written words li
89 matches
Mail list logo
