Hi John,
I will answer your post as soon as possible. I am a bit busy those
days (september exams, administrative things, ...).
At the same time, the sequel of the "seven step series" should be part
of that answer, but this is what I will explain ...
Thanks for letting me know your interest,
Bruno
On 06 Sep 2009, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote:
> Bruno,
> there is a lot of wisdom in your post. Your last sentence, however,
> may apply to that wisdom as well I am afraid.
>
> "...I have to assume that [such] truth are not dependent of me,..." -
> nor on anything else we may know of. I stay clear of 'truth' which
> is applied in whoever's theory - as 'his' truth.
> I am in trouble with the "Church Thesis", it seems to be anchored in
> the math of functions and applied to comp.science. (BTW "recursive
> functions" pointing back to themselves? a restriction into what has
> been known (already)? I may have the wrong idea (if any) about the
> Ch-Th of course.)
> It may be 'fundamental' in - what I consider - a segment of the
> totality.
>
> I can accept the 'universal machine' as not restricted to
> mathematical comp,
> it definitely should not apply those binary-slanted algorithms. I
> consider it as
> some analogue 'think-tank' beyond our present terms. Whatever I
> would try to characterize it with, is MY restriction to its
> unlimited capabilites. So I don't.
>
> Bruno, is your own restriction concentrated to 'physics' with
> 'math' as in:
> ("All theories in physics use at least that arithmetical
> fragment....")?
> I love your extension of 'metaphors' (bosons) into galaxies and
> brains. They certainly are, included into our presently valid
> "perceived reality" of figments.
>
> "Scientists do not commit themselves ontologically...."
> Most - (especially the conventional ones) do. I find it a
> restriction of the total into the so far experienced portion - even
> to the adjusted format of those - serving as the 'entirety this
> 'ontology' is based on. I would love to device an ontology for the
> 'totality' - that would explain lots of questionmarks we still have
> in our ignorance (the how-s, why-s, and the other 1000 to be modest).
> I am not sure about the 'excluded middle' since that is excluded
> from a mere segment we consider 'them all' while the entire set may
> include quite another middle. (My usual objection against
> statistical conclusions and probabilities of course, that are mere
> illusions of our human ways of anticipatory thinking).
>
> I intended this reflection to be 'positive' to your ideas, as
> considered them in more ways than just 'arithmetically
> based' (numbers?).
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
>
> > ... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
> > exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
> > existence. The counterargument is that "existence" in mathematical
> > statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued
> > backwards
>
>
>
> I have never said that numbers exists because there are true
> mathematical statements asserting their existence.
>
> I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such
> truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary to
> even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a
> universal machine exists". In the usual mathematical sense, like with
> the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists.
>
> I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are
> part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic
> way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does not
> depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can 'save
> your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA. And you don't need
> really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine.
>
> All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But
> fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp. May be very fertile
> one. Like galaxies and brains.
>
> Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate
> basic entities and relations in theories which are always
> hypothetical. I am just honest making explicit my use of the non
> constructive excluded middle in the arithmetical realm.
>
> You get stuck at step zero by a bullet you are ntroducing yourself, I
> 'm afraid.
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
>
> >
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 Sep 07 2009 - 07:35:13 PDT