- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: John Mikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:01:17 -0500

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:01:17 -0500

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:

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 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)?

I do not accept 'axioms', they are postulated to make a theoretical position

feasible. I will come back to this at your 'numbers'.

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.

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

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.

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

Thanks

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

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