Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-14 Thread Stephen P. King
On 7/14/2012 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/13/2012 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:55, Stephen P. King wrote: How exactly does one make a connection between a given set of resources and an arbitrary computation in

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Jul 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/13/2012 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:55, Stephen P. King wrote: How exactly does one make a connection between a given set of resources and an arbitrary computation in your scheme? From the measure on all com

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-13 Thread Stephen P. King
On 7/13/2012 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:55, Stephen P. King wrote: How exactly does one make a connection between a given set of resources and an arbitrary computation in your scheme? From the measure on all computations, which must exist to satisfy comp, as the

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:55, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/13/2012 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 21:53, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-13 Thread Stephen P. King
On 7/13/2012 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 21:53, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you s

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Jul 2012, at 21:53, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-12 Thread Stephen P. King
On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can dream) and that their ideas are passive and

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Jul 2012, at 11:34, meekerdb wrote: On 7/12/2012 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Esse is not percipi. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a diophantine polynomial equation".

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-12 Thread meekerdb
On 7/12/2012 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: *_Esse is not percipi_*. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a diophantine polynomial equation".

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can dream) and that their ideas are passive and yet can reproduce all phenomena that w

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Esse is not percipi. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a diophantine polynomial equation". St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can dream) and that their ideas are passive and yet can reproduce all phenomena that would be explained as being the result of physical acts in m

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-11 Thread John Mikes
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *Esse is not percipi*. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a > diophantine polynomial equation". > > *St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with the > Numbers of neo-Platonists. :_(* > -

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-11 Thread meekerdb
On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can dream) and that their ideas are passive and yet can reproduce all phenomena that would be explained as being the result of physical acts in materialism. You argue that this redu

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Jul 2012, at 16:32, Stephen P. King wrote: On 7/11/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:33, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, What I have been doing is exploring the soft underbelly of physics, those sets of "truths" that are just assumed to be true. For exa

Re: esse est percipi?

2012-07-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 7/11/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:33, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, What I have been doing is exploring the soft underbelly of physics, those sets of "truths" that are just assumed to be true. For example, I have become convinced that a lot of the diffic