Dear John,
At 16:50 05/07/04 -0400, you wrote:
>Bruno, I really cannot work this way. I still prepare to reply to your
>earlier post (to me) and here I have the repost on the "1st part"
>with lots to be replied upon. <G>.
Take it easy.
>I am in debt with ~30,000 books I did not read. Never will.
This is 29,999 books too much. Just read the Smullyan little bible:
"Forever Undecided" IF you want ease the understanding of the reversal ...
>How much time
>may I have left? 30-40 years? (I am pushing 83). Will my mind give up? My
>hip did already. (My fingers did not, I still perform classical piano-music
>for a local-public audience - next: October).
Nice. I'm about 50, and serious jaws problems ...
You know one of my best Saturday Course student is 87.
>So I gave up checking on past millennia wisdom and work on the present -
>absorbed and developed for myself since retirement. The oldies speculated in
>a cognitive inventory of the mind which was much poorer than the lately
>absorbed enrichments. I appreciate their wisdom, as 'function of mind', but
>the conclusions MAY be old. I am not a judge of that, but can stay out of
>such argumentations.
>"Comp", "QM", you ask? Aren't they within the mindset of the minds within
>THIS universe, which I deemed "human ways" of thinking?
To be frank I do think Comp and QM are more universal than human, and
perhaps what *is* human is to considere comp and QM as human thinking.
Got argument that those belongs to all possible universes, or better all
possible
dreams.
>Same good old
>math-conceptualization. I am talking about something not-matching. Cohen and
>Stewart played such tunes in their enjoyable books (Collapse of Chaos and
>Figments of Reality) - their "aliens", the Zarathustrans, with their
>octimalization (8?). Of course that was still sort of "human" switch, a bit
>of Tao etc.
I read many of your web text. You did defend sort of naturalism isn't it?
I tend to consider that the opposition natural/artificial is ...
artificial (and thus natural).
> >> "truth" is an object of study by logicians.<< My best wishes for them. I
>went through many 'thruths' - different religious ones, reincarnational,
>pragmatic natural science, astrology, Indian,
We are not talking of the same "truth". I talk about many different ways
to just talk about the concept. Just tools for being able to go through
many "truth" is a non confusing way.
>Marxist, Leninist, atheist (who require a god to deny),
In the first page of the introduction to "Conscience et Mecanisme" I
explain that atheist are believers indeed.
>every one had
>something attractive, but...
>and settled with my scientific agnosticism: not even the contrary is true of
>what people believe. (That really came from politics).
I am a scientific agnostic too. (Agnostic to nature, universe, matter, ...).
But I cannot doubt 1+1 is 2, except for some minutes before the first (or
the second
I never know) cup of coffee ...
>If you go into "variables": my wholistic views allow no fixed conditions and
>unlimited variabilities upon which a mathematician friend remarked: "well,
>this is a bit steep". Only models can have boundaries, quantities, fixed
>qualia etc. That goes also for QM (Comp I don't know, never let it clarify
>in my mind).
?
>Even "topics" are cut out from the extratopical wholeness.
>Limited Models.
>A map is a model, a territory a wider one. Most minds (on this and other
>lists) work within a certain modeling (we cannot do better, that's the way
>we can manage with the material tool we apply for thinking: the neuronal
>brain, restricting the mind into "human" logic (oops!).
>Is my wholistic thinking inept for achieveing practical conclusions? you bet
>it is. We just started to tackle with such ideas, have to find suitable
>concepts and (formulate?) words to express them.
This is what I try to propose right now.
> >...(UDA) *forces* us to do: if comp is true we have to explain
> > the physical appearances by a sort of mean on all consistent belief
> > systems. <
>(if!)
Yes. IF! I cannot provide more.
>- now the 'physical appearances' are the mind's interpretations upon
>impact inknown, lately observed by instruments WITHIN this system of ours.
>And I did not ask for "CONSISTENT" belief systems, before I even know what
>kinds may exist at all.
Arithmetical consistency is very large (by Godel). Indeed even inconsistency
is consistent !!!!! (Godel' second theorem). Just let your mind accept
classical
logic for a while, if only for the sake of the argument. Why not?
>We know SOME, here and now,
>pertinent to our cultural basis (human mindset of the present local(?!)
>societal conditions).
>I am consistent in my agnosticism. All argumentative support from within is
>useless for without.
OK.
>Now I can return to thinking about math (for the 2nd part reply), although I
>don't know much about it. It was my elective in my Ph.D. work (1948), never
>used it later, beyond arithmetics, mostly by my slide ruler, while inventing
>and implementing a pioneering-worldlevel industrial branch, 38 patents,
>consulting (and solving technical production-problems) on 3 continents over
>4 decades. All in the simplest reductionist technical common sense
>creativity.
You are hard with yourself, no?
Look, John, you are quite lucky (with respect to my work) given that you
know the french!
You can read my Changeux/Conne/comp recent paper here:
http://lutecium.org/stp/marchal.html
The others can download it for its 8 + 1 pictures which talks by themselves ...
> I am ready for a coffee, myself.
Enjoy it,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Jul 07 2004 - 06:38:58 PDT