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

From: m.a. <marty684.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:03:41 -0400

Questions and comments interspersed below (in bold).

----- Original Message -----

From: Bruno Marchal

To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:14 PM

Subject: Re: The seven step series

On 06 Jul 2009, at 16:12, m.a. wrote (in bold):

My answers. m.a.

Here we met a set of sets.

The set of subsets of a set, can only be, of course, a set of sets. The set {2, 21, 14} is a set of numbers. The set { { }, {4, 78, 56} } is a set of sets. It has two elements: the empty set {}, and the set of numbers {4, 78, 56}. Do not confuse a number, like 24, and a set, like {24}, which is a set having a number has elements. In particular it is the case that {4, 78, 56} belongs to { { }, {4, 78, 56} }. Take it easy, and meditate on the following exercise:

Which of the following are true

{3, 5} included-in {3, 5} True

OK.

{3, 5} belongs-to {3, 5} True

Not OK. The elements of {3, 5} are 03 and 5. {3, 5} is not an *element* of {3, 5}.Why not? They look like elements to me. Please define "elements" as applies to this example..

Ask in case you are not OK with this, of course.

{3, 5} included-in { {3, 5} } False

OK. Very good.

{3, 5} belongs-to { {3, 5} } True

OK. {3, 5} is even the *only* element of { {3, 5} }

No exercise today. Just a question, a suggestion, and a plan.

The question is: have you the feeling to learn something?

The suggestion: I think the best way to answer the preceding question consists in trying to explain what you learn to someone else. It is the best way to see if you remember and understand the definition. You could try to explain what you learn to some gentle "victim" in your neighborhood (wife, friend, child, parent, ...).

I give you a plan, and some more motivation. To get the seventh step in some proper way, there is a need to understand the mathematical notion of "universal machine".

I've read about Turing machines if that's what you're referring to.

For this I need to explain what is a computable function. For this I need to explain what is a function, and for this I need to explain what is a set, given that functions can more easily be explained through sets relating sets. Once you will have a good grip of what is a universal machine, or what is a universal number, and what really means "universal", we will be able to tackle the notion of universal dovetailing, and especially the "mathematical universal dovetailing" (which is really important for the whole approach, and for the step eight). I am hesitating to work quickly on the notion of function, or to do some pieces of number theory and geometry to provide examples before.

As I said recently to John, the discovery of the notion universal machine is one of the most astonishing and gigantic discovery made by the humans, and what I do is just an exploitation of that discovery. Universes, cells, brains and computers are example of universal machine, and the notion of universal machine are a key to understand why eventually, once we say "yes to the doctor", and believe we can survive "qua computatio", we have to redefine physics as an invariant for the permutation of all possible observers, and how physics can be recovered from an invariant among all universal machines point-of-views ...

Feel free to slow me down, or to accelerate me, and to ask any question at whichever level of details you want. Feel free to ask any question that you have already asked.

Have a good day, and thanks for your effort and seriousness,

Bruno

PS. It should be obvious for everyone that if there are still questions, critics, objections, problems, feeling of dizziness, whatever, with the first six steps of the UDA, please, feel free to ask. And people should not hesitate to discuss other everything-like subject, I don't want to monopolize the list of course. But the UDA reasoning really changes the perspective on all possible TOEs, so I will feel free myself to point on UDA on each discussion where I find it relevant (of course also).

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?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Mon Jul 06 2009 - 22:03:41 PDT

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:03:41 -0400

Questions and comments interspersed below (in bold).

----- Original Message -----

From: Bruno Marchal

To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:14 PM

Subject: Re: The seven step series

On 06 Jul 2009, at 16:12, m.a. wrote (in bold):

My answers. m.a.

Here we met a set of sets.

The set of subsets of a set, can only be, of course, a set of sets. The set {2, 21, 14} is a set of numbers. The set { { }, {4, 78, 56} } is a set of sets. It has two elements: the empty set {}, and the set of numbers {4, 78, 56}. Do not confuse a number, like 24, and a set, like {24}, which is a set having a number has elements. In particular it is the case that {4, 78, 56} belongs to { { }, {4, 78, 56} }. Take it easy, and meditate on the following exercise:

Which of the following are true

{3, 5} included-in {3, 5} True

OK.

{3, 5} belongs-to {3, 5} True

Not OK. The elements of {3, 5} are 03 and 5. {3, 5} is not an *element* of {3, 5}.Why not? They look like elements to me. Please define "elements" as applies to this example..

Ask in case you are not OK with this, of course.

{3, 5} included-in { {3, 5} } False

OK. Very good.

{3, 5} belongs-to { {3, 5} } True

OK. {3, 5} is even the *only* element of { {3, 5} }

No exercise today. Just a question, a suggestion, and a plan.

The question is: have you the feeling to learn something?

The suggestion: I think the best way to answer the preceding question consists in trying to explain what you learn to someone else. It is the best way to see if you remember and understand the definition. You could try to explain what you learn to some gentle "victim" in your neighborhood (wife, friend, child, parent, ...).

I give you a plan, and some more motivation. To get the seventh step in some proper way, there is a need to understand the mathematical notion of "universal machine".

I've read about Turing machines if that's what you're referring to.

For this I need to explain what is a computable function. For this I need to explain what is a function, and for this I need to explain what is a set, given that functions can more easily be explained through sets relating sets. Once you will have a good grip of what is a universal machine, or what is a universal number, and what really means "universal", we will be able to tackle the notion of universal dovetailing, and especially the "mathematical universal dovetailing" (which is really important for the whole approach, and for the step eight). I am hesitating to work quickly on the notion of function, or to do some pieces of number theory and geometry to provide examples before.

As I said recently to John, the discovery of the notion universal machine is one of the most astonishing and gigantic discovery made by the humans, and what I do is just an exploitation of that discovery. Universes, cells, brains and computers are example of universal machine, and the notion of universal machine are a key to understand why eventually, once we say "yes to the doctor", and believe we can survive "qua computatio", we have to redefine physics as an invariant for the permutation of all possible observers, and how physics can be recovered from an invariant among all universal machines point-of-views ...

Feel free to slow me down, or to accelerate me, and to ask any question at whichever level of details you want. Feel free to ask any question that you have already asked.

Have a good day, and thanks for your effort and seriousness,

Bruno

PS. It should be obvious for everyone that if there are still questions, critics, objections, problems, feeling of dizziness, whatever, with the first six steps of the UDA, please, feel free to ask. And people should not hesitate to discuss other everything-like subject, I don't want to monopolize the list of course. But the UDA reasoning really changes the perspective on all possible TOEs, so I will feel free myself to point on UDA on each discussion where I find it relevant (of course also).

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?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Mon Jul 06 2009 - 22:03:41 PDT

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