Re: Lost and not lost?

From: Kim Jones <>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:16:27 +1100

On 02/12/2008, at 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> Hi Kim,
> On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote:
>> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi -
>> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no
>> substratum of primitive physical materiality?
>> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te
>> serais infiniment reconnaisant
> To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho or
> bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding.

OK - accepted; I get this from mathematicians and physicists all the
time - and I have quite a few as friends. Nevertheless, if there was
one human on the planet who could do it, or at the very best make a
heroic attempt at it, I reckon YOU'RE THE ONE!!!!!

Court jesters like me cannot understand mathematics, but we understand
the 'realities' described by mathematics through a kind of sixth
sense. We are also very good judges of character. Tu peux te sauver,
mais tu ne peux pas m'eschapper!!!

> What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it.

I LOVE the Mandelbrot set. I intuitively feel that reality is fractal.
I do not know how I 'know' this. Please explain to me how I can know
something without really knowing something

> Also, I don't want to bore the list too much,

I don't think all these 'brains the size of a planet' are being bored
by a different way of looking at the same data for once. Hopefully
they welcome it.

> and there are already
> many posts, so I will go extremely slowly.

Yes, there are many monks hunched over their manuscripts in cloisters
racking their brains by candle-light, trying to see in the data what
they have long ago decided is already there.....

> You may be disappointed.

That nobody can explain reality without using mathematics? But reality
already IS - I don't see algebra floating around inside my living
room!! Maybe the universe is most ACCURATELY described in the
(devil's) details using the numbers but what about SIMPLIFYING it all
for once?

Surely a FIVE YEAR OLD can sit at this table and appreciate some of
this stuff? Maybe a five year old can actually PUT something on the
table to be considered because the brains-the-size-of-a-planet have
forgotten that simplicity is a much more effective force for good than

There is much FOGWEED growing on this list. Maybe reality is too
simple to understand - as opposed to too complex. Let's get into a bit
of jardinage!!!

> In general mystic-open people like the
> conclusion,

Well - I'm not into mystery, that's for sure. I don't trust people who
perpetuate mysteries. They are covering something up!!! I still expect
the conclusion to follow from the reasoning, but I happen to believe
that once you have cogitated on the mathematics, the output CAN be
described in plain English (or French)

Why should it be that anybody devoid of a PhD in higher mathematics
and logic and computer science should be locked out of this
discussion? As I said to Russell recently, "I worship at the feet of
anybody who can understand this (mathematical) stuff"


I happen to believe (in my humble foolishness) that you can still
communicate these (really quite) momentous ideas in a way that the
99.9999999% of humanity who don't inhabit universities for most of
their lives can understand

> but dislike the hypotheses and the methodology
> (reasoning).

If I could bloodywell understand it I might start to like it! Ain't my
problem. It's YOURS

I didn't ask to be born with a desire to understand the fabric of
reality. It afflicts me like a DISEASE

> The rationalists like the hypotheses and the reasoning,
> but few appreciate the conclusion.

That's because everybody only wants to see his own ideas confirmed by
the reasoning. As Colin Hales says, scientists predict everything
except a scientist.

Even scientists want to be loved and appreciated, I guess

> Are you really serious?

As serious as any fool ever gets, I suppose. I imagine the attempt
will be fun. New advances in neuroplasticity suggest that as we age,
we should attempt to do the SAME things differently, because that way
the neurons stay healthy.

Some older people haven't learnt a new skill in 50 years. These are
the ones who are merely confirming constantly their own conclusions
under the guise of "doing science"

> I could send a post per month, taking
> everything at zero.

That's fine. This is perhaps your BIGGEST challenge dear Bruno. You
need to take it slowly and ENJOY the challenge my dear

> Have you an intuition that consciousness is not material?

Of course! If we take every score of Beethoven's 3rd symphony and burn
them - if we trash every orchestral recording ever made of it - if we
get every conductor and player who could remember parts of it or all
of it and ERASED their memories of it or just murdered them outright

I still believe Beethoven's 3rd symphony STILL exists. You will
doubtless say "in Platonia"

Music IS a bunch of mathematical objects spinning in their own space.
Why I cry for some reason when I see Garrett Lisi's E8 thingy. It's
MUSIC goddam it!!!

> In case you were not serious, it is ok also.

I am UNSERIOUSLY SERIOUS. I am not so "serious" that I have any pre-
conceived notions about what I want. When I look in the mirror in the
morning I always say to the guy looking back "Who the fuck are you????"


I believe they are all talking at you now!!!!

> But I like to share, and
> others could benefit.

That is the hallmark of a true teacher, somebody I have only the
highest repect for

> Who knows, you could be the one finding the
> fatal flaw!

You are too kind monsieur

> Best,
> Bruno
> La vérité sort de la bouche des débutants.

Genial. Faites-entrer les gosses!!!!!!!!


> >

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 Mon Dec 01 2008 - 18:16:55 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST