Subject: Re: What is 'Existence'?
==
On 23 Sep 2012, at 12:18, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This is my schema.
Can you complete/ammend it?
Things in themselves (noumena) - - Have a computational nature (Bruno) : few
components
Hi Stephen,
Any idea about whatever is outside of the mind (noumena, thing it itself
as Kant named it)before it is experienced as phenomena is and will
remain speculative forever. By definition. But this does not prohibit our
speculations...
2012/9/23 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
The unavoidable speculative nature of neumena makes existence uncertain to
the most deep level. All we have is the phenomena, that are mental. So
certainty of existence has meaning within an space of shared conscience of
believers that have, by various mental processes, certainty of existence
of
Hi Bruno,
With components I mean a neutral enumeration of entities. perhaps
lebnitzian monads would be more appropriate.
Besides numbers + and * I think that is necessary machines or any kind of
instruction set + an execution unit? . It isn't?
2012/9/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 23
. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Mikes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-22, 15:52:11
Subject: Re: What is 'Existence'?
Dear Stephen and Bruno:
(BRUNO: Hmm... Then numbers lives, but with comp, only universal or Lobian
numbers can be said reasonably
--
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-22, 14:05:04
Subject: Re: What is 'Existence'?
On 9/22/2012 5:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word
On 9/24/2012 8:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
What's in a name ?
If you have a better word for what I have been calling
physical existence, please say it.
Actuality.
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this
-
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-24, 07:40:08
Subject: Re: What is 'Existence'?
On 9/24/2012 6:46 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Any idea about whatever is outside of the mind (noumena, thing it
itself as Kant named it) before it is experienced
sense in some context, but not when you search a theory
*explaining* or enlightening the big picture. You need a criterion of
existence for what you take as primitive, and then you can defined the
many different sorts of existence which can be reduced to the
primitive existence.
But you
On 24 Sep 2012, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Bruno,
With components I mean a neutral enumeration of entities. perhaps
lebnitzian monads would be more appropriate.
Besides numbers + and * I think that is necessary machines or any
kind of instruction set + an execution unit? .
On 22 Sep 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
With comp, all the exists comes from the ExP(x) use in
arithmetic, and their arithmetical epistemological version, like
[]Ex[]P(x), or []Ex[]P(x), etc.
Can not you see, Bruno, that this stipulation makes existence
contingent upon
This is my schema.
Can you complete/ammend it?
Things in themselves (noumena) - - Have a computational nature (Bruno) :
few components: numbers, + *
- Is just a
mathematical manyfold(Me), few components: equations
On 9/23/2012 6:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This is my schema.
Can you complete/ammend it?
Things in themselves (noumena) - - Have a computational nature
(Bruno) : few components: numbers, + *
- Is just a
mathematical manyfold(Me),
On 23 Sep 2012, at 12:18, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This is my schema.
Can you complete/ammend it?
Things in themselves (noumena) - - Have a computational nature
(Bruno) : few components: numbers, + *
OK, for the chosen basic ontology. Numbers, and theor additive and
multiplicative
On 9/22/2012 5:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal
I think we should only use the word exists only when we are
referring to physical existence.
Dear Roger,
I think the exact opposite. We should NEVER use the word exists in
reference to what is merely the subject of human
Dear Stephen and Bruno:
*(BRUNO: Hmm... Then numbers lives, but with comp, only universal or Lobian
numbers can be said reasonably enough to be living.
You might go to far. Even in Plato, the No? content (all the ideas) is
richer that its living part. I doubt Plato would have said that a circle is
On 9/22/2012 3:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stephen and Bruno:
/*(BRUNO: Hmm... Then numbers lives, but with comp, only universal or
Lobian numbers can be said reasonably enough to be living.
You might go to far. Even in Plato, the No? content (all the ideas) is
richer that its living part. I
2011/2/12 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 11:47 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/11 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 10, 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:20, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi
On Feb 12, 9:03 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/12 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
However, they don't exist, so there is no mystery. You just
have to pretend they do in order to play certain games.
However they do exists...
Proof?
I can think about them. I
On Feb 10, 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:20, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin
On Feb 11, 11:47 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/11 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 10, 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:20, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message- From: Bruno
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its
false?
The only ontology is my conciousness, and some amount of consensual
Hi Stephen,
On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:20, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false
before its
false?
The
23 matches
Mail list logo
