Thanks, Bruno, lots of remarkable notions in your remarks (I mean: I can
write remarks to them 0 sorry for the pun). Let me interject in Italics
below.
John
On 2/5/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:20, John Mikes a écrit :
>
> > Stathis, Bruno,
> >
> > This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a
> > way to
> > 'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without
> > the
> > 'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform?
>
>
> I am not sure. Avoiding technical acceptance of a theoretical platform
> can be done for presenting result, not really for discussing about
> them.
Before discussing, I want to 'understand' - definitely without first
'accepting' the platform I may discuss. One has to be able to express ideas
for people who do not know them in advance.
> There are sacrosanct 'words' used without explaining them (over and
> > over again?, BUT
> > at least once for the benefit of that newcomer 'alien' who comes from
> > another vista' ,
> > like
> >
> > (absolute?) probability - is there such a thing as probability, the
> > figment that
> > if it happend x times it WILL happen the (X+one)th time as well?
>
>
> This is inductive inference, not probability.
There are probability-discussions going on on 2 lists. aLL FALL into your
term. Do you have an example for probability (as pointed out from a
muiltitude of possible occurrences)?
> combined with
> > the statistical hoax of counting from select members in a limited
> > group the version
> > 'A' models and assuming its 'probability'?
>
>
> That is why to use probability and/or any uncertainty measure we have
> to be clear about the axioms we are willing to admit, at least for the
> sake of some argument.
I do not accept 'axioms', they are postulated to make a theoretical position
feasible. I will come back to this at your 'numbers'.
>
> > observer moment (observer, for that matter), whether the moment is a
> > time-concept
> > in it and the 'observer' must be conscious (btw: identifying
> > 'conscious')
>
>
> The expression "observer moment" has originated with Nick Bostrom, in
> context similar to the doomsday argument. I would call them "first
> person observer moment". I will try to explain how to translate them in
> comp.
Translate it please first into plain English. Without those symbols which
may be looked up in half an hour just to find 8 other ones in the
explanation which then can be looked up to find 5-6 further ones in each and
so on.
this is the reason for my FIRST par question.
>
> > number (in the broader sense, yet applied as real integers) (Btw: are
> > the 'non-Arabic'
> > numbers also numbers? the figments of evolutionary languages
> > alp[habetical or not?
> > Is zero a number? Was not in "Platonia" - a millennium before its
> > invention(?!)
>
>
> Number, by default are the so called "natural number": 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
> ...
> They correspond to the number of strokes in the following sequence of
> sets:
> { }, { I }, { II }, { III }, { IIII }, { IIIII }, { IIIIII }, {
> IIIIIII }, { IIIIIIII }, etc.
Does that mean that you cannot distinguish whether 3, 30, 101010, 120, 1002,
etcetera, ALL SYMBOLISED BY {III} ???? (plus the unmarked zeroes)
(You did not include the hiatus and position, as number, as I see).
Which would nicely fit into the "Number=God" statement, as infinite
variations of infinite many meanings..
Zero is a number by definition. But this is just a question of
> definition. For the Greeks number begins with three. Like the adjective
> "numerous" still rarely applies when only two things are referred too.
Like Teen(ager) starts at 13. Early development counted to 5, (fingers?)
above that it was "many". In Russian there is a singular and a dual case,
then a 'small plural' for 3,4,5, then comes the big plural 6-10 in every
decimal size repeatedly. Ancient Hungarian etc. music was pentatonal. Now
we are decimalic (for practical reasons, except for some backward countries,
e.g. USA) - our toddler computers are binary. So I presume (induction-wise)
that there will be developed other number-systems as well in the future,
unless we accept humbly to be omniscient and sit at the top of the epistemic
enrichment.
>
> > The 'extensions' of machine into (loebian etc.) [non?]-machine, like
> > comp into the nondigital
>
>
>
> ? comp does not go out of the digital, except from a first person point
> of view (but that is an hard technical point, to be sure).
Do you deny the analogue computing? or(!!) transcribe the participants of
any analogy into numbers? I called above the digital computing "toddler".
In "english" I would define a "universal (digital) machine", by a
> digital machine potentially capable of emulating (simulating perfectly)
> any other digital machine from a description of it. Today's computers
> and interpreters are typical example of such "hard" and soft
> (respectively) universal machines. Now a universal digital machine is
> lobian when she "knows" that she is universal. Defining "knows" has to
> be a bit technical. This is not at all an official definition. Look at
> my SANE04 paper for a more offical definition. It is related to a sort
> of placebo phenomenon. If we continue this conversation there will be
> plenty of time to make this clear. But you are right to ask for
> definition, or for more explanations.
Thanks
> and mixing our mental interpretations with what has been
> > interpreted (unknowable).
>
>
> Don't hesitate to come back on this? Out of context I could say to much
> things and then have to repeat it.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Just some picked examples promoting a not-so-technical glossary for
> > the rest of the world
>
>
> Make a list, and send it. So we can think about. Not all
> conversation-threads ask for the same level of precision.
I like the idea of making a list just cannot promise how long it takes.
Bruno
John
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Feb 20 2007 - 17:01:23 PST