On 11/4/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
The primacy of 17 or 43 or any other number is such that it can
be apprehended, at least in principle, by /at least one entity/
(please note that this is a lower bound concept!). This implies that
in the absence of that possibility o
On 03 Nov 2012, at 16:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't consider truth as an object. The numbers can be
considered as the (only) object. truth concerns o
On 11/3/2012 6:24 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't consider truth as an object. The numbers can be considered as the (only)
object. truth concerns only the propositions about those objects and the derivative
notions.
OK, then how is it that you
On 11/3/2012 6:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 2:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 12:44 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/2/2012 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to be
meaningful in the absence of any means to evaluate its
meaningfulnes
On 11/3/2012 2:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 12:44 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/2/2012 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to be meaningful in the absence
of any means to evaluate its meaningfulness.
So what means do you used to eval
On 11/3/2012 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] All this makes sense only because such truth does not depend
on us and on our theories.
[SPK] No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to
On 11/3/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't consider truth as an object. The numbers can be considered
as the (only) object. truth concerns only the propositions about
those objects and the der
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] All this makes sense only because such truth does not depend
on us and on our theories.
[SPK] No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to be
meaningful in the absence of any mean
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't consider truth as an object. The numbers can be considered
as the (only) object. truth concerns only the propositions about
those objects and the derivative notions.
OK, then how is it t
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] All this makes sense only because such truth does not depend on
us and on our theories.
[SPK] No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to be
meaningful in the absence of any means to evaluate its meaningfulness.
That is arithmetic
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't consider truth as an object. The numbers can be considered as
the (only) object. truth concerns only the propositions about those
objects and the derivative notions.
OK, then how is it that you seem to imply that truth is independent
of 1
On 02 Nov 2012, at 21:19, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes,
On 11/3/2012 12:44 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/2/2012 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to be meaningful
in the absence of any means to evaluate its meaningfulness.
So what means do you used to evaluate, "Either snow is white or snow
is not wh
On 11/2/2012 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to be meaningful in the absence of
any means to evaluate its meaningfulness.
So what means do you used to evaluate, "Either snow is white or snow is not
white."?
My eyes can still discrimin
On 11/2/2012 10:48 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/2/2012 3:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39
On 11/2/2012 3:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, number
On 11/2/2012 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts li
On 11/1/2012 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a solips
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a solipsism to our universe such that
other multiverse versi
On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
The ONE is much more than the universal mind, as it is where the
universal minds compete, perhaps before eventually recognizing
themselves and reuniting, or fusing,
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a solipsism to our universe such that
other multiverse versions of oiur universe coul
23 matches
Mail list logo
