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), few components: equations
- Are Monadic
(Roger). many components
- Are
phisical: includes the "phisical world" with: space, time persons,
cars. (physicalists)
Things perceived (phenomena) -> - Relies on the architecture of the
mind, the activity of the brain (a local arangement that
keep entropy
constant along a direction in space-time, the product of natural
selection
Therefore, existence is selected (Me)
- The mind is a
robust computation -and therefore implies a certain selection- (Bruno)
- Are created by
the activity of the supreme monad (Roger)
- Does not
matter (physicalists)
Hi Alberto,
As I see it, the idea that the noumena are specific and definite
without being given in association with phenomena is false as it implies
that the "things in themselves"" have innate properties for no reason
whatsoever...
2012/9/23 Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
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 the ability to be defined by a symbol and thus on
human whim? It is the tool-maker and user that is talking through
you here.
Confusion of level. The stipulation used to described such
existence does not makes such existence contingent at all. Only
the stipulation is contingent, not its content, which can be
considered as absolute, as we work in the standard model (by the
very definition of comp: we work with standard comp (we would not
say "yes" to a doctor if he propose a non standard cording of our
brain).
That gives a testable toy theology (testable as such a theology
contains the physics as a subpart).
Testable, sure, but theology should never be contingent. It
must flow from pure necessity and our finite models are simply
insufficient for this task.
First our model is not finite, only our theories and machines are.
And the AUDA illustrates clearly that theology's shape (the
hypostases) follows pure necessity, even if all machine will
define a particular arithmetical content for each theology, but
this is natural, as it concerns the private life of individual
machine (it is the same for us by default in all religion).
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
