Re: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
Hi Bruno Marchal But R^3 is not extended in spacetime, is not at location r at time t and isn't a physical but a mental object I would say rather that R^3 inheres. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/24/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-22, 15:49:55 Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ? On 22 Sep 2012, at 11:25, Roger Clough wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I think we should only use the word exists only when we are referring to physical existence. BRUNO: Hmm That might aggravate the naturalist or materialist human penchant. ROGER: Why ? Naturalist and materialist entities are extended and so physically exist. R^3 is extended, but is not physical. The Mandelbrot set is extended, but is not physical. What I say here is how I think Leibniz would respond. Thus I can truthfully say, for example, that God does not exist. Wikipedia says, In common usage, it [existence] is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. BRUNO: But that points on the whole problem. With comp and QM, even when you observe the moon, it is not really there. ROGER: Yes it is. Although I observe the moon phenomenologically, it still has physical existence in spacetime because it is extended. I don't what is spacetime. I work on where spacetime oir space time hallucinations come from. At least that's Leibniz' position, namely that phenomena, although illusions, still have physical presence. I don't understand. the physical is what need an explanation, notably when you assume comp. Leibniz refers to these as well-founded phenomena. You can still stub your toe on phenomenological rocks. Yes. But this is more an argument that phenomenological rocks can make you stub the toe, even when non extended, like when being virtual or arithmetical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence On the other hand, Platonia, Plotinus, Plato, Kant and Leibniz, take the opposite view or what is real and what exists. To them ideas and other nonphysical items such as numbers or anything not extended in space, anything outside of spacetime are what exist, the physical world out there is merely an appearance, a phenomenon. Following Leibniz, I would say of such things that they live, since life has such attributes. 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 living. Life will need the soul to enact life in the intelligible. Plato's One is a special case, saince it is a monad of monads, OK, it makes sense with m?nad of monads = universal machine/number, and monad = machine/number. And more esoteric thinking treats numbers more as beings: http://supertarot.co.uk/westcott/monad.htm BRUNO: The person and its body. OK. For the term exist I think we should allow all reading, and just ask people to remind us of the sense before the use. 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. That gives a testable toy theology (testable as such a theology contains the physics as a subpart). Bruno ROGER: You lost me, except I believe that a main part of confusion and disagreement on this list comes because of multiple meanings of the word exists, which brings me back to where I started: I think we should only use the word exists only when we are referring to physical (extended) existence. Which brings me back to my statement: this will not help. You can use this in the mundane life, or even when doing physics (although with QM, even this is no more clear). But if you serach a TOE, it is clearer to clearly distinguish what you assume to exist at the start, and what exists by derivation, and what exists in the mind of the self-aware creatures appearing by derivation. Keep in mind that the UD arrgument is supposed, at the least, to show that the TOE is just arithmetic (or anything Turing equivalent), and that the physical reality has to be recovered mathematically by the statistical interference of number's dream. That is an exercise in theoretical computer science. We can recover more, as we can get a large non communicable, but hopable or fearable, part. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 04:10:52 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P.
Re: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
Hi Stephen P. King I have since abandoned the term living for the term to inhere to apply to nonphysical existence such as thoughts or ideas or numbers. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/24/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-22, 15:40:12 Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ? On 9/22/2012 5:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona If we can define what we are talking about, most of our problems will be solved. That is why I believe we ought to use the Descartes-Leibniz definition of physical existence as that which is in spacetime (is extended). Thus the brain exists. Nonphysical existence (mind) is that which is not extended in space and hence is said to be nonextended or inextended. I have been referring to this type of existence as living, but number does not seem tpo be alive since it does not change while living things do. I sucggest that we use the term mental for inextended entities. Then both number and mind are mental. Roger Clough,rclo...@verizon.net 9/22/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen Dear Roger, The only problem that I see is that the term living has an associated schemata of meaningfulness. It would be better, I argue, to cleanser the term existence of its vague and nonsensical associations and use it for the necessary possibility of both the extended and non-extended aspects of the One. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
Hi Bruno Marchal R^3 has no dimensions, and does not exist in spacetime. So instead of calling it actual, I say that it inheres (when read or thought). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/24/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-24, 09:03:42 Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ? On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:32, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal But R^3 is not extended in spacetime, is not at location r at time t and isn't a physical but a mental object What makes you sure that the physical is not a mental object? I would say rather that R^3 inheres. Not sure this helps. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I think we should only use the word exists only when we are referring to physical existence. BRUNO: Hmm That might aggravate the naturalist or materialist human penchant. ROGER: Why ? Naturalist and materialist entities are extended and so physically exist. What I say here is how I think Leibniz would respond. Thus I can truthfully say, for example, that God does not exist. Wikipedia says, In common usage, it [existence] is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. BRUNO: But that points on the whole problem. With comp and QM, even when you observe the moon, it is not really there. ROGER: Yes it is. Although I observe the moon phenomenologically, it still has physical existence in spacetime because it is extended. At least that's Leibniz' position, namely that phenomena, although illusions, still have physical presence. Leibniz refers to these as well-founded phenomena. You can still stub your toe on phenomenological rocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence On the other hand, Platonia, Plotinus, Plato, Kant and Leibniz, take the opposite view or what is real and what exists. To them ideas and other nonphysical items such as numbers or anything not extended in space, anything outside of spacetime are what exist, the physical world out there is merely an appearance, a phenomenon. Following Leibniz, I would say of such things that they live, since life has such attributes. 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 living. Life will need the soul to enact life in the intelligible. Plato's One is a special case, saince it is a monad of monads, And more esoteric thinking treats numbers more as beings: http://supertarot.co.uk/westcott/monad.htm BRUNO: The person and its body. OK. For the term exist I think we should allow all reading, and just ask people to remind us of the sense before the use. 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. That gives a testable toy theology (testable as such a theology contains the physics as a subpart). Bruno ROGER: You lost me, except I believe that a main part of confusion and disagreement on this list comes because of multiple meanings of the word exists, which brings me back to where I started: I think we should only use the word exists only when we are referring to physical (extended) existence. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 04:10:52 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt Olympia. Not at all, the answer is easy here. In the big picture, that is arithmetic, nothing is done. The computations are already done in it. doing things is a relative internal notion coming from the first person perspectives. Also, Platonia does not really exist, nor God, as existence is what belongs to Platonia. Comp follows Plotinus on this, both God and Matter does not belong to the category exist (ontologically). They are epistemological beings. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Does Platonia exist ?
Hi Alberto G. Corona If we can define what we are talking about, most of our problems will be solved. That is why I believe we ought to use the Descartes-Leibniz definition of physical existence as that which is in spacetime (is extended). Thus the brain exists. Nonphysical existence (mind) is that which is not extended in space and hence is said to be nonextended or inextended. I have been referring to this type of existence as living, but number does not seem tpo be alive since it does not change while living things do. I sucggest that we use the term mental for inextended entities. Then both number and mind are mental. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/22/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 12:42:47 Subject: Re: Does Platonia exist ? Hi, Anyone serious about knowing truths must either spend its life trying to define the concept of existence and fighting for it or? to discard it for all uses. The concept of phisical exsitence has a primitive utilitary nature: ?re there men in the other side of the mountain?. This urgent need to fix the knowledge of the phisical environment makes existence something crucial for communication. More sophisticated civilizations added to the existence more subtle concepts, which had effects in the personal and social life of the people: philosophical, psichological , political, religious. In this?ense materialism is a return to primitivism. ? In pragmatic terms, ?nything that has effects in life exist. Are you humans with hands, minds etc ?r are you allucinations, robots? I don? know it properly, but you exist for me.? This makes the concept of existence redundant, or at most, a matter of public consensus in the context of a community. But probably existence has never been more than this. Alberto. 2012/9/21 Bruno Marchal On 21 Sep 2012, at 12:21, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal ? I think we should only use the word exists ?nly when we are referring to physical existence. Hmm That might aggravate the naturalist or materialist human penchant. Thus I can truthfully say, for example, that God does not exist. ? Wikipedia says, In common usage, it [existence] is the world we are aware of through our senses, ? and that persists independently without them. But that points on the whole problem. With comp and QM, even when you observe the moon, it is not really there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence On the other hand, Platonia, Plotinus, Plato, Kant and Leibniz, take the opposite view or what is real and what exists. To them ideas and other nonphysical items such as numbers or anything not extended in space, anything outside of spacetime are what exist, the physical world out there is merely an appearance, a phenomenon. ?ollowing Leibniz, I would say of such things that they live, since life has such attributes. 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 living. Life will need the soul to enact life in the intelligible. So when we say that a man exists, we are speaking of the physical man. But when we say that he lives, we are speaking of man as a mental or living being. The person and its body. OK. For the term exist I think we should allow all reading, and just ask people to remind us of the sense before the use. 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. That gives a testable toy theology (testable as such a theology contains the physics as a subpart). Bruno - Receiving the following content - ? From: Bruno Marchal ? Receiver: everything-list ? Time: 2012-09-21, 04:10:52 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. ?he problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? ??runo can 't answer that question. He is
