Thanks, Bruno, for your helping effort.
It did not do too much for me because it started out
with 'assuming comp' which means: we need nothing more
than (number) trivialities and (as you wrote):
> Numbers protects the free mind against a *vast*
> class of reductionism....<
What I feel is the complete reductionism INTO numbers.
No wonder if 'they' protect us against other types.
Your 'vanilla story' did not ring a bell in my mind to
an understganding about what you wrote.
I learned that the square root of 2 is irrational, but
did not learn what 2 may be if not two kikcs in the
behind or two roses. Square rooting goes well within
your 'manipuklating numbers' what I believed similarly
to "Noah survived the flood".
I call 'happiness of the mathematicians' the happiness
of the believers not questioning what "number" may be
and using them from pre-platonia on.
I feel (not in numbers<G>) that your mind is working
in the numbers-maze so deeply that I doubt if your
help copuld really induce me (from the unbiased
outside) into the platonistic-Godelian number
crunching wisdom.
Thanks anyway for your friendly trying
John
--- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Le 21-juil.-06, � 22:52, John M a �crit :
>
> > Could we talk 'topics' without going into
> trivialities what every child
> > knows after the first visit to the grocery store?
>
>
> But the cute thing (in my perhaps naive lobianity)
> here is that you
> don't need more than the trivialities every child
> knows after the first
> visit to the grocery store, to understand that, once
> we assume comp,
> Numbers protects the free mind against a *vast*
> class of reductionism.
> I should perhaps not insist on that because,
> sometimes I ask myself,
> humanity could be not mature enough, but there are
> many reason to
> believe that eventually all universal machines
> sufficiently correct to
> survive will converge toward a state of being
> universal dissident, a
> typical allergy to authoritative arguments.
>
> > As long as we cannot identify what a 'number' is,
> it does not
> > contribute to
> > an understanding of reason.
>
> Could we identify what a human is?
>
> > What is '3' without monitoring something?
>
> With the Fi I tried to explain how far can numbers
> can monitors
> numbers, including partially themselves.
> Also, I would get the feeling of lying to myself if
> I was not
> acknowledging that I understand better the number 3
> than an electron or
> a theory about electrons.
>
> > (This is not a personal attack on you or YOUR
> >theory, it is a common belief
> > and I question its usability - not by opposing,
> just curious to find a way
> > to accept it and experience the happiness of the
> mathematicians).
>
>
> Do you know the proof that the square root of 2 is
> irrational. It is an
> impossibility theorem. Godel's incompletness and
> Turing's
> insolubilities are very deep impossibility theorem
> concerning machine,
> and us (assuming comp). The happiness of the
> mathematician is of many
> type: barock, romantic, jazz, mystery-inspired,
> esthetic ....
>
> > As you can see, I have no idea about number
> theory. Whenever I tried
> > to read
> > into it, I found myself (the text) inside the
> >mindset which I wanted to
> > approach from the outside. Nobody offered so far a
> >way to "get in" if you are "outside" of it
>
>
> I can offer my help, but I don't want to insist.
>
> > It is a magic and I do not like magic.
>
> I like true magic. I hate magic+ marmelade.
>
>
> > Next time when I ask "how can you describe the
> taste of vanilla by
> > manipulating ordinary numbers"? TRY IT.
>
> You asked me more difficult problems in the past,
> John.
> *assuming comp*, there is an easy answer. Go to
> Numberplatonia, use
> Goedel's technic to write a little program with the
> instruction "help
> yourself". Pray each day your little program develop
> itself convenably,
> perhaps with the help of the heaven. When
> sufficiently developed,
> maybe after billions of years, invite e to the next
> grocery and buy er
> a vanilla candy, and then ask er. E will give you
> the best description
> you can ever hope of a taste of vanilla,
> corresponding to a billion
> years of ordinary number manipulations and you can
> look at them if you
> have print the execution of the program.
>
> If comp is true, nobody will know for sure which
> numbers are
> responsible for the vanilla qualia, although
> empirical theories will
> progress up to the point of buying "qualia".
> Successes there will be
> serendipitous, and unproved scientifically, but most
> of us will not
> care ... only for bugs ... and protection of privacy
> (an explosively
> daunting task of the future which will be made
> tractable through
> quantum information practice I think).
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Jul 22 2006 - 11:28:01 PDT