On 11/4/2012 7:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
All that we can know of reality is in the experience of "now."
Hi Roger,
Yes, in our mutual consistency and individually, but we have to
start with a 'now' at the 1p for each observer. Every observer perceived
itself at the center of its own universe.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/4/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:26:12
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
?? After I wrote the above I can see how you would think of properties as being
innate,
I meant independent of us. Not innate in the sense of psychology.
Dear Bruno,
?? Please elaborate on what this independence implies that has to do with the
definiteness of properties.
but I see this as just a mental crutch that you are using to not think too
deeply about the concept of property.
I garee with what Leibiz said, and what Frege and the logicians have done with
it.
?? Any elaboration or link on this?
The situation is the same for your difficulty with my hypothesis of meaning. We
learn to associate meanings to words so that words are more than just
combinations of letters, but this is just the internalization of the
associations and relations within our thinking process.
You are too much unclear, for me. I can agree and disagree. As long as you
don't present your theory it is hard to find out what you mean.?
Bruno
?? Please understand that I am still developing my thesis, it is not yet born.
It is like a jig-saw puzzle with most of the Big Picture on the box missing...
?? Even today I realized a new piece of the picture, but I don't know how to
explain it... It has to do with the way that the duality permutes under
exponentiation in Pratt's theory in a way that might be a better way to connect
it with comp.
?? The canonical transformation of the duality, in Pratt's theory, is an exact or bijective
chain of transformations ... -> body -> mind -> body -> mind -> ... This makes
the isomorphism between the Stone spaces and Boolean algebras into a bijective map equivalent
to an automorphism. If we consider the transformation for the case there it is almost but not
quite bijective, then we get orbits that tend to be near the automorphism, like the orbits of
a strange attractor and not exactly periodic in space/time. This can be taken to something
like an ergodic map where the orbits of the transformation are never periodic and every body
and mind in the chain is different.
?
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
