Re: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
Hi Roger, Then my friend is either blasphemous or the church has evolved since then. Recent history of the church suggests that it evolves but rather conservatively. Richard On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > According to Aquinas. God IS intelligence. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/24/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Richard Ruquist > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-24, 08:54:31 > *Subject:* Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof > > Stephan, > I find it interesting that according to my Roman Catholic professor > theologian friend, > 燝od has intention but but intelligence. That would seem to be consistent > with what you say below. I'll have to ask him if the church came to that > viewpoint do to the " ordinary problem of solipsism". > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> Dear Roger, >> >> 牋� I only see one glaring gap in your explanation here: the chain of >> non-interaction leads all the way up to the supremum where God is >> essentially and effectively (not)interacting with itself. Is this not the >> very definition of Solipsism? How is the problem of solipsism not even >> infinitely more acute for God? God has no peers, so it naturally implies >> that the ordinary problem of solipsism - what does one human solipsist say >> to another? - is a mute point, but somewhere and somehow the appearance of >> plurality of entities must appear in order for us to explain appearences. >> This is the very same question that I keep asking Bruno and he seems to not >> understand the question: How does a plurality of minds emerge from the One >> such that they have an appearance of interactions without falling into the >> morass of allowing for everythign and thus, ultimately, explaining nothing? >> 牋� It seems to me that Leibniz was working out the Everything vs. Nothing >> problem of existence from a different point of view with the monadology. >> >> >> On 8/24/2012 7:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen P. King >> � >> True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme >> intelligence >> insures that the same result happens.�In other words, you can't tell the >> difference. >> So at least in one place Leibniz says, "True, they don't actually >> interact, >> because ideas as substances cannot interact, but there's no harm in >> saying >> that they do." >> � >> � >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/24/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* Stephen P. King >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-08-23, 16:39:18 >> *Subject:* Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof >> >> On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> > Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and >> > sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of >> > arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal >> > machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to >> > the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem. >> > >> > You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time >> > invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to >> > present it. >> Dear Bruno, >> >> 牋牋營t is the body problem that is your problem. There is no solution >> for it in strict immaterialism. Immaterials cannot interact, they have >> nothing with which to "touch" each other. All they can do is imagine the >> possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of >> "imagining the possibility of X" (a string of recursively enumerable >> coding the computational simulation of X). >> 牋牋燭his would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up >> in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the >> concurrency problem. It is the scarcity of physical resources that >> forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how >> to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource >> availability! >> >> 牋牋燤y dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic >> logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to >> communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very >> well. ;-) >> >> >> 牋牋燘y the way, I only asked from a verbal -> written English version >> of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do >> appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for. >> >> G is >> >> [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) >> []p -> [][]p >> []([]p -> p) -> []p >> >> with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A >> >> S4Grz is >> >> [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) >> []p -> [][]p >> []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p >> >> with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A >> >> 牋牋燭hese symb
Re: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
Hi Richard Ruquist According to Aquinas. God IS intelligence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/24/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-24, 08:54:31 Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof Stephan, I find it interesting that according to my Roman Catholic professor theologian friend, ?od has intention but but intelligence. That would seem to be consistent with what you say below. I'll have to ask him if the church came to that viewpoint do to the " ordinary problem of solipsism". On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Roger, ?? I only see one glaring gap in your explanation here: the chain of non-interaction leads all the way up to the supremum where God is essentially and effectively (not)interacting with itself. Is this not the very definition of Solipsism? How is the problem of solipsism not even infinitely more acute for God? God has no peers, so it naturally implies that the ordinary problem of solipsism - what does one human solipsist say to another? - is a mute point, but somewhere and somehow the appearance of plurality of entities must appear in order for us to explain appearences. This is the very same question that I keep asking Bruno and he seems to not understand the question: How does a plurality of minds emerge from the One such that they have an appearance of interactions without falling into the morass of allowing for everythign and thus, ultimately, explaining nothing? ?? It seems to me that Leibniz was working out the Everything vs. Nothing problem of existence from a different point of view with the monadology. On 8/24/2012 7:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ? True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme intelligence insures that the same result happens.?In other words, you can't tell the difference. So at least in one place Leibniz says, "True, they don't actually interact, because ideas as substances cannot interact, but there's no harm in saying that they do." ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/24/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 16:39:18 Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and > sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of > arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal > machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to > the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem. > > You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time > invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to > present it. Dear Bruno, ???t is the body problem that is your problem. There is no solution for it in strict immaterialism. Immaterials cannot interact, they have nothing with which to "touch" each other. All they can do is imagine the possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of "imagining the possibility of X" (a string of recursively enumerable coding the computational simulation of X). ???his would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the concurrency problem. It is the scarcity of physical resources that forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource availability! ???y dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very well. ;-) ???y the way, I only asked from a verbal -> written English version of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for. G is [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) []p -> [][]p []([]p -> p) -> []p with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A S4Grz is [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) []p -> [][]p []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A ???hese symbols have verbal words associated with them, no? If you where to read of these sentences aloud. What English sounds would come out of your mouth? Could those words be transcribed here for the readers of the Everything List? What word corresponds, for instance, to "->" ? Implies? -- -- 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 everyth
Re: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
Hi Stephen P. King No, God communes with us (and the entire universe) and we also commune with him, depending on our clarity of "vision" and intelligence, and perhaps desire, don't know yet. According to Lutheran orthodoxy (L was a Lutheran), God, since He causes all, can cause us to commune with Him and have faith. I suppose wiping out sins is also there, but so far no mention of Jesus. My conjecture is that Jesus is between man and God, but since He is both, it may be more complicated. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/24/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-24, 08:31:24 Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof Dear Roger, I only see one glaring gap in your explanation here: the chain of non-interaction leads all the way up to the supremum where God is essentially and effectively (not)interacting with itself. Is this not the very definition of Solipsism? How is the problem of solipsism not even infinitely more acute for God? God has no peers, so it naturally implies that the ordinary problem of solipsism - what does one human solipsist say to another? - is a mute point, but somewhere and somehow the appearance of plurality of entities must appear in order for us to explain appearences. This is the very same question that I keep asking Bruno and he seems to not understand the question: How does a plurality of minds emerge from the One such that they have an appearance of interactions without falling into the morass of allowing for everythign and thus, ultimately, explaining nothing? It seems to me that Leibniz was working out the Everything vs. Nothing problem of existence from a different point of view with the monadology. On 8/24/2012 7:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme intelligence insures that the same result happens. In other words, you can't tell the difference. So at least in one place Leibniz says, "True, they don't actually interact, because ideas as substances cannot interact, but there's no harm in saying that they do." Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/24/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 16:39:18 Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and > sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of > arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal > machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to > the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem. > > You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time > invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to > present it. Dear Bruno, It is the body problem that is your problem. There is no solution for it in strict immaterialism. Immaterials cannot interact, they have nothing with which to "touch" each other. All they can do is imagine the possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of "imagining the possibility of X" (a string of recursively enumerable coding the computational simulation of X). This would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the concurrency problem. It is the scarcity of physical resources that forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource availability! My dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very well. ;-) By the way, I only asked from a verbal -> written English version of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for. G is [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) []p -> [][]p []([]p -> p) -> []p with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A S4Grz is [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) []p -> [][]p []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A These symbols have verbal words associated with them, no? If you where to read of these sentences aloud. What English sounds would come out of your mouth? Could those words be transcribed here for the readers of the Everything List? What word corresponds, for instance, to "->" ? Implies? -- -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to t
Re: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
Hi Stephen P. King True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme intelligence insures that the same result happens. In other words, you can't tell the difference. So at least in one place Leibniz says, "True, they don't actually interact, because ideas as substances cannot interact, but there's no harm in saying that they do." Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/24/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 16:39:18 Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and > sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of > arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal > machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to > the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem. > > You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time > invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to > present it. Dear Bruno, It is the body problem that is your problem. There is no solution for it in strict immaterialism. Immaterials cannot interact, they have nothing with which to "touch" each other. All they can do is imagine the possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of "imagining the possibility of X" (a string of recursively enumerable coding the computational simulation of X). This would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the concurrency problem. It is the scarcity of physical resources that forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource availability! My dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very well. ;-) By the way, I only asked from a verbal -> written English version of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for. G is [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) []p -> [][]p []([]p -> p) -> []p with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A S4Grz is [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q) []p -> [][]p []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A These symbols have verbal words associated with them, no? If you where to read of these sentences aloud. What English sounds would come out of your mouth? Could those words be transcribed here for the readers of the Everything List? What word corresponds, for instance, to "->" ? Implies? -- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
Hi Bruno Marchal
Could you explain a little about Bp & p duality ? Are they both
analytic, or does one of them us synthetic logic ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 14:17:50
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 21 Aug 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Aug 2012, at 12:12, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno and Stephen,
This is the bicameral mind again. Right brain must accept left brain decisions
for human safety.
Ought must rule over is (or else we'd all be nazis, Hume, for the safety of
humanity)
Passion must rule over reason (or else we'd all be nazis, Hume, for the safety
of humanity)
Acceptace of proof dominates proof (common sense psychology)
Thus you can objectively, mathematically prove that 2+2=4, but you still have
to subjectively accept that psychologically.
Woman always gets the last word.
No problem here. That fits nicely with the Bp versus Bp & p duality, which is
just the difference between "rational belief" and "rational knowledge" (true
rational belief).
It took time to realize that when we define the rational belief by formal
proof, which makes sense in the ideal correct machine case, although knowledge
and belief have the same content (the same arithmetical p are believed), still,
they obey to different logics. This is a consequence of incompleteness.
Rational beliefs obey to a modal logic known as G (or GL, Prl, K4W, etc.) and
true rational belief obeys to a logic of knowledge (S4), indeed known as S4Grz.
G is
[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([]p -> p) -> []p
with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A
S4Grz is
[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p
with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
It might help us immensely if you could tell us how to read these symbolic
representations. Not all of us speak that language! There are English words for
all of these symbols!
???
The only differences with elementary propositional logic are that we have one
symbol more, the box "[]", and one more inference rule.
It is a unary operator symbol, so if X is a formula, []X is a formula, like ~X.
The inference rule is that you can derive []p from p. Careful, this does not
make p -> []p true in most modal logic.
I wrote often the box [] by using the letter B.
In the axiom above, it is better to not interpret the box, as this can confuse
with the representation theorem which associate "meaning" mathematically.
I have often talked about Bp and Bp & p, with Bp having the arithmetical
provability meaning (G?el 1931).
G above is the logic of G?el's beweisbar predicate. For example the second
incompleteness theorem is given by Dt -> ~BDt, or <>t -> ~[]<>t, or
consistent('t') -> NOT PROVABLE (CONSISTENT 't')), with for example t = "0=0",
et 't' = G?el number of "0=0".
S4Grz above is the corresponding logic of the first person associated to the
machine, given by beweisbar('p') & p, following Theatetus, and then Boolos,
Goldblatt, Artemov. I have provided many explanations on this list, including
an introduction to modal logic and the Kripke semantics, but you can also open
some book in logic to help yourself.
G and S4Grz are the two machineries illustrating (and formalizing completely at
the propositional modal) two important arithmetical hypostases discovered by
the UM when looking inward. G is the logic of third person self-reference and
S4Grz is the logic of the first person self-reference.
There are six other hypostases, or machine's points of view, three of them
playing a role in the "creation of the collective persistent matter
hallucination. Comp makes obligatory that persistence, and it can be tested,
and it can be argued that the presence of p -> []<>p as a theorem in SGrz1 and
Z1* and X1* confirms it in great part. Interactions can be defined in a manner
similar to Girard, and then tested on those "material hypostases". I think that
this is explained in the second part of the sane04 paper.
The "1" added to the system refers to the fact that we eventually limit the
arithmetical translation of the sentence letters (p, q, r, ...) to the sigma_1
sentences, which "models" the UD in arithmetic.
In particular Richard Ruquist's theory that fundamental physics is given by
string theory becomes testable with respect to comp, as UDA shows that the
physics is entirely retrievable from the S4Grz1, Z1* and/or X1*, and their
first order modal extension.
It is not as difficult as most paper your refer to, and it is only one paper,
and you got the chance to ask any question to the author :)
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I (meta)disagree with
such an id
