Re: Dreaming On

From: 1Z <>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:09:52 -0700 (PDT)

On 31 July, 18:55, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2009, at 18:05, 1Z wrote:
> > If it isn;t RITSIAR, it cannot be generating me. Mathematical
> > proofs only prove mathematical "existence", not onltolgical
> > existence. For a non-Platonist , 23 "exists" mathematically,
> > but is not RITSIAR. The same goes for the UD
> Is an atom RITSIAR? Is a quark RITISIAR?

If current physics is correct.

> The point is just that IF you survive "in the RITSIAR" sense, with a
> digital (even material, if you want) brain, then materiality has to be
> retrieved by coherence or gluing property of immaterial computation,
> or there is an error in the UD Argument.

It is not clear what you mean by that. If I am transferred from a
brain into a physcial computer, physicalism is unscathed. Your
against physcialism is that is unnecessary because something else
is doing the work -- that I could be running on some immaterial UDA.
But you have to assume Platonism to get your UDA, so you have to
assume Platonism to refute physicalism. Without that assumption, the
rest doesn't follow.. It is step 0.

> >>> wihout a UDA there are no generated minds, without generated minds
> >>> there is no illusory matter.
> >> Sure. But the UD exists, like prime number exists.
> > Which for a non-Platononists is not at all
> > in the relevant sense.
> Again, if that is true, there must be something wrong in the UD
> Argument. Which one?

The *implict* assumption of Platonism. Step 0.

> > How can a conlusion that the material world doesn't exist
> > be neutrral about Platonism?
> The point is that Platonism is in the conclusion, not in the hypothesis.

It has to be in the hypothesis. Otherwise you need to show
that your UDA is a phsycal entity floating in space somwhere.
In fact, you have explictly said that the UDA has Platonic existence:
"But the UD exists, like prime number exists".

> > If Platonism is false,
> > the mathematical world doesn';t exist either. and
> > there is nowhere for the UD to exist at all.
> Why do you want the UD to exist somewhere?

Because I exist somewhere, and I can;t be generated out
of shear non-existence.

>Does prime numbers need to
> exist somewhere to exist at all?

I say hey don't.

You say they do.:

"But the UD exists, like prime number exists".

> Does the physical universe exist somewhere?

Something does. You can't eliminate the phys. uni. AND Plato's heaven.
Then there is nothing left at all.

> The UDA reasoning is, in a short way: Comp -> Platonism. (In your
> sense of platonism).

No,. its Platonism->Comp -> Platonism.

> If you believe Platonism is false, then by the UD Argument, you
> believe that comp (i.e. YD + CT) is false, or you believe that there
> is something wrong in UDA.

> What?

The assumption of Platonism you need to give the UD
some sort of existence.

> Let me ask you that question precisely.
> Is it a problem with the first person indeterminacy and its invariance
> properties? That is, is it a problem in the first sixth steps: UDA 1--6.
> Is it a problem with UDA-7. Where the indeterminacy domain, still
> material, is infinite?
> Is it a problem with UDA-8. Where the indeterminacy field become
> (sigma_1) arithmetical?

I have already answered that. THere is an *implicit* assumption
of Platonism before you even get on to the rest of it.

> (sigma_1 means here a very tiny part of arithmetical truth,

As in "very small numberof pixies"

>actually a
> verifiable part which is common to intuitionist and platonist (in the
> weak sense of believer in classical logic, sigma_1 = machine turing

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Aug 06 2009 - 10:09:52 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST