Bruno, you are simply making assumptions which I consider unwarranted.
Belgium is one such assumption. Your intellect is a number-construction as
much as numbers are a construct of your intellect.
As for the flying (not white - this will confuse readers of the FAQ even
more than they need to be) rabbits, I consistently argue that asking why
rare things are rare is failing to understand anthropic reasoning.
James
----- Original Message -----
From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde
>
> I comment again George Levy for making
> clearer where I disagree with James Higgo's last Post.
>
> * * *
>
>
> I wrote:
>
> << George Levy wrote:
>
> >> BM:..Positive integers exists. Nothing else.
>
> >This is a integercentric statement if I ever saw one.
>
> BM: Oh ! George. You don't met Pythagore, or Xenocrate, ...
> in the plenitude. Do you? >>
>
> * * *
>
> I should have answered: "Of course it is a
> an integercentric statement!".
>
> After all godel numbering makes immaterial program
> number like and a slightly poetical version of the
> turing-tropic view (turing-centric) view is that
> I am a number.
> And here we are not a long way from Xenocrate definition of
> the soul: "a number which moves itself". (Like a
> practionners of comp can live if you remember the TEs)
>
> But of course "I am a number" taken literaly, is a
> category mistake. From the third person point of view
> I am much more like a cloud of numbers spreading in
> a cloud of "real/complex" numbers. From a first person
> point of you I am, obviously, a person, your servitor :-)
>
>
> * * *
>
> James Higgo wrote:
>
> >Wat am I? Obviously, 'I' am an Observer-Moment.
>
> This is the same category mistake. You are no more an
> Observer-Moment than I am a number. Those are intellectual
> constructions. I am sure that if by chance you travel
> to Brussels, I will offer you a cup of coffee. Why would I
> ever offer a cup of coffee to an observer-moment ?
> And how would I? The time to prepare the coffee and
> you, dear observer-moment, disappear ...
>
> >This
> >current OM, including writing this email, is not related
> >to 'remembered' OMs except in that the 'remembered' OMs do
> >happen to exist.
>
> So the 'remembered' relation (whatever it is) create a
> link between observer-moments, isn't it? I need no more links
> than that.
>
> >There is no"I" that was one OM and then
> >'became' this OM. The block universe is static.
>
> I agree with both sentences. comp's block universe is UD*
>
> >Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is
> >unrelated to 'my current' OM.
>
> I hope not. Why ?
>
> >But since all OMs exist I can be sure that
> >there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this
merde'.
>
> Of course. There is an infinity of such OM in UD*.
>
> I think we are disagreing mostly on pedagogy. Isn't it?
>
> To make that OM-sort of enlightment third person accessible (science),
> we must still explain the rarity of the OM 'I am Bruno and I am
> reading this merde in company of ten thousand white rabbits'.
>
> With comp there is a logical road to enlightment, modulo open
> mathematical questions.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 10 2001 - 11:33:54 PST