On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of
> > the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!)
> > that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect
> > of itself.
>
> Yes, and this is where Aristotle and Plotinus differs the most (even
> more than Aristotle/Plato). Would the ONE have a pov, He/She/It would
> be solispsist. A sad thing for a "God" ....
Sad indeed. Perhaps the One just has to differentiate to get some company.
Anyway, the notion of the solipsism of the One essentially
encapsulates the view I was trying to put forward from the inception
of our dialogues on "first person primacy". But since the One is not
what most people would consider a person (let alone a god), another
term would be better. I wonder what?
David
>
>
> Le 12-juil.-07, à 16:27, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> >
> > On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> I try to avoid the words like "reflexive" or "reflection" in informal
> >> talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
> >> I tend to agree with what Brent said.
> >
> > Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing with him myself. But I
> > nevertheless feel, from their posts, that this is *not* what some
> > people have in mind when they use the term 'exists'.
>
>
> "existence" is a very very tricky notion. In the theory I am proposing
> (actually I derived it from the comp principle) the most basic notion
> of "exists" is remarkably well formalize by first order arithmetical
> logic, like in Ex(prime(x)): it exists a prime number.
> All other notion of "existence" are modal variant: like
> B[Ex(prime(x))], or ExB(prime(x)); I believe there is a prime number,
> there is a number such that I believe that that number is prime, etc.
> Of course, in the lobian frame, "B" refers itself to an arithmetical
> predicate (the "Beweisbar of Godel 1931).
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> I'm afraid
> >> that sometimes you are near the 1004 fallacy.
> >
> > That may well be, but unfortunately I tend only to discover specific
> > examples of this by trial and error. But having done so, I try to
> > hold on to the discovery.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> >
> >> But of course
> >> your intuition grew perhaps from non comp or non lobian origin.
> >
> > That's definitely the case.
>
> OK. (except that you are perhaps lobian, just not knowing it).
>
>
>
> >
> >> (I see now what could be the comp lobian "observer moments", and will
> >> say more in a special purpose post.
> >
> > I look forward to it.
>
>
> Thanks. I will do that in august, if you don't mind; it asks for some
> work. It will be related to the content of my next paper, where I
> currently think I will use the "observer moment" notion (and refer to
> the list). Roughly speaking, I think that we have to consider first
> person and third person notion of OM. Nick Bostrom original one is
> clearly a notion of 1-OM.
> I can show that with comp there is a natural notion of 3-OM, which is
> just the (true) Sigma1 sentence. They correspond to the accessible
> states of the Universal Dovetailer, or to the theorem of a Robinsonian
> machine or universal machine.
> A universal machine (or person) get Lobian when she knows (in a
> technically rather weak sense) that she is universal. This makes it
> possible (well, even necessary) for the machine to distinguish the 3-OM
> with all possible 1-OM notion, and this can accelerate the derivation
> of the physical laws from numbers/machines relations. The new and key
> point is the identification of 3-OM directly with Sigma1 sentences.
>
>
> >
> >> Coming back from Siena, I know now that all my work on Church thesis
> >> is
> >> more original than I thought (meaning: I have to publish more before
> >> even logician grasp the whole thing ...).
> >
> > You have a hard row to plough!
>
>
>
> The difficulty is the interdisciplinary overlap of quantum physics,
> mathematical logic and, perhaps the harder part: philosophy or
> mind/theology.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> Is "us" = to the lobian machine?
> >
> > I just meant observers in general, using myself as the model.
> >
> >>> and I've been trying to convince Torgny
> >>> that we shouldn't fool ourselves into mistaking such conceptions for
> >>> modes of existing.
> >>
> >>
> >> But each point of view (hypostasis) defines its own "mode of
> >> existence". Now Plotinus restricts the notion of existence for the
> >> ideas (here: the effective objects which provably exist in Platonia).
> >> That is why both God and Matter does not really exist in Plotinus
> >> theory. Of course God and Matter do exist, even for Plotinus, but it
> >> is
> >> a different mode of existence.
> >
> > I'm frustrated that I don't seem to be able to communicate what I mean
> > here (I don't know if this is an example of 1004 or not). I meant
> > that just because we can imagine something in a gods' eye way doesn't
> > (for me) entail that it exists in any other way - what I called (but
> > I'll desist!) 'reflexively' (i.e. with reference to itself, or just:
> > for itself), which Brent was content to call existence simpliciter.
> > This intuition of course just begins with knowing that *I* exist for
> > myself, which implies that others exist for themselves, which
> > ultimately implies that everything exists for itself - 'the One' being
> > the ultimate expression of this. I don't mean to equate 'exists for
> > itself' with consciousness, but to say that consciousness emerges as a
> > complex aspect of such self-relation. I'm convinced both that you
> > know what I mean by this, and also that it can be expressed in the
> > Lobian discourse (though not by me).
>
>
>
> Perhaps. The problem here is that I should explain technical things
> just to help you to figure out the complexity of the point you single
> out. To translate this in the lobian discourse is less easy than you
> think. More on this in august.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>> 'The One' is also a mode of enquiry (no less tricky, of course): it
> >>> seems to suggest that the mode of existing of both the qualia and the
> >>> quanta may be ineliminably reflexive: the splintering of a singular
> >>> process of self-reflexion.
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > That was just another way of putting what I said above: IOW, that
> > everything is a relativisation of the One, - i.e. the primary
> > existent-for-itself. I see now that my '1004 fallacy' is just that
> > when I'm not sure I've been understood, I try to say it another way.
> > But this is confusing. I see the value of your sticking to your
> > methodology, but then the problem for the generalist is that he has to
> > work very hard to follow you. But that of course is my problem not
> > yours.
>
>
> Making myself, or the lobian discourse, clear is also part of my
> problem, to be sure ...
>
> You are right: 3 explanations can help, a 4th one could be too much ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>> Self: because there is no other;
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >>
> >>> reflexion: because there is no other relation.
> >>
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > Another example of (over)precision perhaps. I sometimes think a lot
> > of time could be saved if some of these dialogues took place in the
> > same room! I just meant that, given that all existence-for-itself
> > derives from relativisation of the One, the notion of 'other' itself
> > becomes relative (i.e. everything is really just an aspect of the One:
> > there is no 'other' in any absolute sense).
>
>
> I would say that being oneself, is absolute from a first person pov,
> but relative from a third person pov.
>
>
>
>
> > Consequently, all
> > relations are relations of the One with itself: i.e. self-relations.
> > The reason I thought this might be important, originally, is that ISTM
> > that it had a fundamental relevance to mind-body issues. I felt that
> > the whole 'dualist' problem came from not seeing this. Dualism is
> > clearly not relevant when everything is an aspect of the One, so that
> > the relations which constitute both mind and matter are
> > self-relations.
>
>
> I'm happy you say so.
>
>
> >
> > I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of
> > the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!)
> > that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect
> > of itself.
>
> Yes, and this is where Aristotle and Plotinus differs the most (even
> more than Aristotle/Plato). Would the ONE have a pov, He/She/It would
> be solispsist. A sad thing for a "God" ....
>
> 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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jul 13 2007 - 11:02:26 PDT