Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-08-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-juil.-06, à 04:58, George Levy a écrit : Stephen Paul King wrote: little discussion has been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen? Hi Stephen Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-10 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Would you agree that this imaginary 'substantial world' is a figment of our existing (math - comp based) logic and with another one it would be 'that way', not 'this way'? Inescabapbly!? I guess you know that the sum of the 100 first odd numbers is 100^2. If you

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-10 Thread 1Z
George Levy wrote: Stephen Paul King wrote: little discussion has been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen? Hi Stephen Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-10 Thread John M
Peter, would you consider to identify the 'observer'? (Maybe not as an O -moment...) Many think of The Observer AS me or fellow humans while there may be a broader view, like e.g. anything catching info which comes closer to (my) 'conscious' definition. The observer seems so fundamental in the

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-10 Thread 1Z
John M wrote: Peter, would you consider to identify the 'observer'? (Maybe not as an O -moment...) No, I wouldn't care to. There are theories that talk about observations, measurement and so on (that's epistemology), but there aren't any that tell you what an observer *is* ontologically.

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 08-juil.-06, à 22:10, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just saying that I have faith in the fact that the number 17 is prime, independently of me. That 17 is prime is true, independent of you? Or that 17 exists, independent from you, as a a prime number. ? A priori the

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: A priori the first one: [17 is prime] is independent of me. But now I accept also the first order predicate rule that if someone prove 17 is prime, he can infer Ex(x is prime), so that I can take the proposition it exists a number which is prime as independent of me

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-juil.-06, à 14:26, 1Z a écrit : So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ? I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why insubstantial numbers generate inescapably, by the

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread John M
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 09-juil.-06, � 14:26, 1Z a �crit : So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ? I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-juil.-06, à 14:26, 1Z a écrit : So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ? I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why insubstantial numbers generate

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread George Levy
Stephen Paul King wrote: little discussion has been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen? Hi Stephen Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can point you to is John

RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
George Levy writes: StephenPaulKingwrote: Iwouldliketopointoutthatyoumayhaveinadvertentlyveeredinto theproblemthatIseeinthe"YesDoctor"belief!Itisentirely unverifiable. Itisunverifiablefromthe3rdpersonperspective.Fromthefirst personperspectiveitisperfectlyverifiable."I"willnotobserveany

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 07-juil.-06, à 18:32, 1Z a écrit : Why do you think the Curch thesis needs AR ? There is a conceptual argument in favor of Church Thesis. It is the closure of the (RE) set of partial recursive functions for the diagonalization procedure. I will (re)explain in the solution of the fourth

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-08 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi George, - Original Message - From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:49 AM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: I would like to point out that you may have

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 07-juil.-06, à 23:31, John M a écrit : Bruno: I speculated about my problems why I follow your (and others') expressions with difficulty. I was capable to understand concepts in diverse sciences and now I have to reflect about fitting 'comp', 'UDA', 'YesDoctor', even 'arithmetical

Re: Only Existence is necessary? - Math,Numbers

2006-07-08 Thread John M
, July 08, 2006 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Le 07-juil.-06, à 23:31, John M a écrit : Bruno: I speculated about my problems why I follow your (and others') expressions with difficulty. I was capable to understand concepts in diverse sciences and now I have to reflect

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-08 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just saying that I have faith in the fact that the number 17 is prime, independently of me. That 17 is prime is true, independent of you? Or that 17 exists, independent from you, as a a prime number. ? I agree that there is no number in nature, but then I don't

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 06-juil.-06, à 23:32, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Remember that comp relies on arithmetical platonism. Your version does. Computationalism is standardly the thesis that cognition is computation. Could you define or explain computation without believing that the relations

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 06-juil.-06, à 23:56, 1Z a écrit : The Yes-Doctor scenario using Bruno-comp should really be a case of saying yes to the proposal: I'm just going to shoot you. I'm not going to make the slightest effort to reconsitute you, teleport you, computerise you, or anything else. You already

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-07 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 06-juil.-06, à 23:32, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Remember that comp relies on arithmetical platonism. Your version does. Computationalism is standardly the thesis that cognition is computation. Could you define or explain computation without

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-07 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Peter, - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:56 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? 1Z wrote: Remember that comp relies on arithmetical platonism. Your version does

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-07 Thread John M
Bruno: I speculated about my problems why I follow your (and others') expressions with difficulty. I was capable to understand concepts in diverse sciences and now I have to reflect about fitting 'comp', 'UDA', 'YesDoctor', even 'arithmetical Plationism' etc. into the flowing considerations.

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-07 Thread George Levy
Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: I would like to point out that you may have inadvertently veered into the problem that I see in the Yes Doctor belief! It is entirely unverifiable. It is unverifiable from the 3rd person perspective. From the first person perspective it is perfectly

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-06 Thread Tom Caylor
Thanks for the diagonalization solution. I apologize for the delay. 4th of July holiday, and now I'm busy. I will try to give my particular response to the diagonalization solution in the next day or so. I hope that my responses are representative of at least some other people. I think a few

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-06 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: 3rd person plural is better than 3rd person. ;) Tom Or as the wisest person in history wrote in his Ecclesiastes: Two are better than one...A cord of three strands is not quickly broken. I think there is wisdom in looking at what the ancient intellects wrote, and making

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-06 Thread 1Z
George Levy wrote: Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain the physics and the objects. This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for the Ether for waves to propagate?

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-06 Thread 1Z
Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Bruno, Le jeudi 22 juin 2006 15:59, Bruno Marchal a écrit : Dear Stephen, Either we have a definition problem or I do not understand. For me relative computations in platonia are not instantiated by definition as they are in platonia. Being in platonia just

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-06 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Remember that comp relies on arithmetical platonism. Your version does. Computationalism is standardly the thesis that cognition is computation. In other words, your argument really has two premises -- AR and (standard) computationalism. You have bundled them together

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-06 Thread 1Z
1Z wrote: Remember that comp relies on arithmetical platonism. Your version does. Computationalism is standardly the thesis that cognition is computation. In other words, your argument really has two premises -- AR and (standard) computationalism. You have bundled them together into

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-02 Thread Tom Caylor
Lee Corbin wrote: Tom writes The difference between a quark and a lepton can be described with mathematics, even though perhaps it's harder to pin down than the difference between 3 and 34. I think most of us wouldn't have a crucial problem with that. But alas the difference between

RE: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-02 Thread Lee Corbin
Stephen writes In my previous post I tried to point out that *existence* is not a first-order (or n-th order) predicate and thus does nothing to distinguish one Form, Number, Algorithm, or what-have-you from another. [LC] I don't know about that; I do know that 34 and 3 are not the

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 02-juil.-06, à 08:44, Tom Caylor a écrit : My point is that of the thread title Only Existence is necessary? Not that observers are necessary for existence, but that existence is insufficient for meaning. I'm still holding out for Bruno to work the rest of his diagonalization tricks to

RE: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-07-01 Thread Lee Corbin
Tom writes The difference between a quark and a lepton can be described with mathematics, even though perhaps it's harder to pin down than the difference between 3 and 34. I think most of us wouldn't have a crucial problem with that. But alas the difference between 3 and 34 is in the

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-28 Thread Tom Caylor
Lee Corbin wrote: Stephen writes it seems that we have skipped past the question that I am trying to pose: Where does distinguishability and individuation follow from the mere existence of Platonic Forms, if process is merely a relation between Forms (as Bruno et al claim)?! In

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Lee, - Original Message - From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:02 AM Subject: RE: Only Existence is necessary? Stephen writes it seems that we have skipped past the question that I am trying to pose: Where does

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
of the act of observation... Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? snip Lee, Bruno, Stephen, I think

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-juin-06, à 23:09, Tom Caylor a écrit : I also agree that the subject to which the Forms have meaning cannot be a Form itself. But as my previous post(s) on this thread mentioned, I see it as a recognition of what is there. I like to use the word re-cogn-ize (again know). A year

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-27 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, I would like to cut to a couple parts of your reply. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:29 AM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? snip [SPK] Pratt does not seek

RE: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-27 Thread Lee Corbin
Stephen writes it seems that we have skipped past the question that I am trying to pose: Where does distinguishability and individuation follow from the mere existence of Platonic Forms, if process is merely a relation between Forms (as Bruno et al claim)?! In my previous post I

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Dear Stephen, snip Comp, I am claiming requires more than just the mere a priori existence of AR (Platonic theory of Numbers), it requires a means to relate them to one another. Numbers are related by addition and multiplication. With Church thesis (+ Godel or Matiyasevich) that

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-26 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Stephen, snip Comp, I am claiming requires more than just the mere a priori existence of AR (Platonic theory of Numbers), it requires a means to relate them to one another. Numbers are related by addition and multiplication. With Church thesis

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
Dear Stephen, We can go on and on about relations between states, numbers, UDs, or whatever, but unless we have a consistent way to deal with the source of individuation and thus distinguishability, we are going nowhere... The source of individuation could be personal memory I think.

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-24 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, Thank you for this wonderful post! Interleaving... - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Dear Stephen, We can go

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-23 Thread marc . geddes
Ah, waht is mathematics? I suspect humans could spend their life-times pondering this profound question and never fully understand. I'm a mathematical realist in the sense that I think mathematical entities are real objective properties of reality and not just human inventions, but I've come

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-23 Thread jamikes
to discuss them with people well versed in worldviews based on foundation of different knowledge-base 'sciences'. John Mikes - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 5:56 AM Subject: Re: Only Existence

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-23 Thread Tom Caylor
Marc and John, Interesting ideas. Don't have time to comment appropriately. But I want to say one thing about my previous thought. Note that I said that mathematics is *about* invariance; I didn't say that mathematics *is* necessarily invariant. There's a big difference. Tom

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-23 Thread jamikes
: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 12:25 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Marc and John, Interesting ideas. Don't have time to comment appropriately. But I want to say one thing about my previous thought

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:14 PM Subject: RE: Only Existence is necessary? Stephen writes What properties do you have in mind that pure platonic algorithms seem to lack? Anything, that is, besides *time* itself? How about

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Hal, Do you have a reference for Moravec's examination of this idea? Stathis Papaioannou Now, if any computation is implemented by any physical process, then if one physical process exists, then all possible computations are implemented. I'll stop at this point, although it is

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Dear Stephen, What makes you think someone (who) asserted (where) that existence is a predicate. I agree with you: existence is not a predicate. Now implementation is a *process*. Again I agree. But this could be just a relative computations (as those living in Platonia. Bruno Le 22-juin-06,

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 22-juin-06, à 03:55, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit (in a reply to Stephen): x-tad-bigger I am reminded of David Chalmer's paper recently mentioned by Hal Finney, Does a Rock Implement Every Finite State Automaton?, which looks at the idea that any physical state such as the vibration of atoms

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi Bruno, Le jeudi 22 juin 2006 15:59, Bruno Marchal a écrit : Dear Stephen, What makes you think someone (who) asserted (where) that existence is a predicate. I agree with you: existence is not a predicate. Now implementation is a *process*. Again I agree. But this could be just a

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Caylor
Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Bruno, Le jeudi 22 juin 2006 15:59, Bruno Marchal a écrit : Dear Stephen, What makes you think someone (who) asserted (where) that existence is a predicate. I agree with you: existence is not a predicate. Now implementation is a *process*. Again I agree.

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Quentin, Le 22-juin-06, à 16:16, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : Hi Bruno, Le jeudi 22 juin 2006 15:59, Bruno Marchal a écrit : Dear Stephen, What makes you think someone (who) asserted (where) that existence is a predicate. I agree with you: existence is not a predicate. Now

Re: Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Stathis, The paper is found here: http://consc.net/papers/rock.html - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:55 PM Subject: RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Stephen,I

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
:59 AM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Dear Stephen, What makes you think someone (who) asserted (where) that existence is a predicate. I agree with you: existence is not a predicate. Now implementation is a *process*. Again I agree. But this could be just a relative computations

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
/Invariant_%28mathematics%29 Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? snip I've been thinking about Platonia lately

Re: Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Hal, - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip Now, if any computation is implemented

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread George Levy
Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: Since information is observer-dependent (Shannon) this issue brings us back to the observer. I think that eventually all observables will have to be traced back to the observer who is in fact at the nexus of the mind-body problem. [SPK]

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Caylor
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_%28mathematics%29 Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: I'vebeenthinkingaboutPlatonialately.I'vejustfinishedreading JohnBarrow's"PiintheSky"book,andheseemstohavegottenwrapped aroundtheaxleinregardtomathematicsandPlatonia.Ithinkthat mathematicsisnotprimarilyaboutnumbers.Mathematicsisabout

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis, I tried to expand on that a little in my last two posts (to Stephen) on this thread, which somehow got disconnected. Here it is again: Stephen, I wrote the following before you wrote this post, but I think it addresses it somewhat. My two cents is again to say that mathematics is

RE: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-22 Thread Lee Corbin
Stephen writes What properties do you have in mind that pure platonic algorithms seem to lack? Anything, that is, besides *time* itself? How about an explanation as to how an illusion of time obtains (assuming the theory of Platonic forms if correct)? I can't speak for advocates of a

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-21 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Quentin et al, I keep reading this claim that only the existence of the algorithm itself is necessary and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation in terms of some Platonic Number, is sufficient to

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-21 Thread George Levy
Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Quentin et al, I keep reading this claim that only the existence of the algorithm itself is necessary and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation in terms of

RE: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-21 Thread Lee Corbin
Stephen writes (BTW, thanks for using plain text :-) I keep reading this claim that only the existence of the algorithm itself is necessary and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation in terms of

RE: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-21 Thread Lee Corbin
George writes Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain the physics and the objects. This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for the Ether for waves to propagate? The

RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Stephen, I am reminded ofDavid Chalmer'spaper recentlymentioned by Hal Finney, "Does a Rock Implement Every Finite State Automaton?", which looks at the idea that any physical state such as the vibration of atoms in a rock can be mapped onto any computation, if you look at it the right

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-21 Thread George Levy
Hi Lee, Lee Corbin wrote: George writes Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain the physics and the objects. This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for

RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary?

2006-06-21 Thread Hal Finney
Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am reminded of David Chalmer's paper recently mentioned by Hal Finney, Does a Rock Implement Every Finite State Automaton?, which looks at the idea that any physical state such as the vibration of atoms in a rock can be mapped onto any