Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

From: John M <>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:19:58 -0400

Dear Bruno,
I don't know how tolerable our discussion may be for the list, but for me it
is enjoyable. Amazing, in how many things (aspects?) we DO agree, coming
fundamentally from quite different worldviews.

> 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).

I never thought about defending 'naturalism' - however now that you mention
The bon mot with 'artificial' should have been written in French.

> 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.
'YOU do think' (!) In our 'human' restrictions we cannot even think about
'other' ways of thinking. If it went through our mind, it DID become 'human
thinking'. If 'it' happened to go into and through it at all. Whatever we
imagine as 'non human' IS human with a twist.
Including your argument Godel II, a gem of the 'human' thought.
(Sci fi is the worst human violent emotional stupidity, neither sci nor fi.
So (just not so bad) are our dreams about 'nonhuman' thinking).

>"belongs to all possible universes"<
Consider the impossible ones.

I will try your article with my rusty French, I never read math-based
science in French (and that was ~50 years ago) so I have doubts about
understanding it. I am afraid to read 'Smullyan's little bible' - it may be
too good. Besides you would not believe how many people suggest such an
inescapble 30,000th ONE book to read.
What I am reading now is "Krakatoa", with a cultural history of the Dutch
British takeover of the Portugese South-of-Asia world - part of my cultural
debt of information.

Then you wrote: "?" after my par including the 'model' view I carry. To
attempt an inadequate rambling about this point: I consider the universe(s)
parts of the wholeness they emerged from, the plenitude (not Plato's), an
unimaginable-undescribable everything in infinite invariance of infinite
symmetrical changes (no time involved). Such emergences are inevitable by
the fact that the 'everything' involves (local - without a space-concept,
transitionally occurring) asymmetries ie. universes, which re-dissipate
timelessly - in the plenitude-view, - however in (long) time and (huge)
space looked at in the view from within OUR universe (part of which is the
human view). Universes may be quite different according to the kind and
qualia of the asymmetries that occurred. No limitations -humanly found
possible or not.
Human mind reduces (orders) our universe-wholeness into space-time based
parcels, topics, aspects, views, I call them "models" with limiting
boundaries and a cut content to observe. This is what I call (my)
reductionism and 'science' is part of it (at least topical - that is). The
'models' are artificially limited entities with (natural) connections beyond
the observed boundaries into the (unlimited) wholeness (of the universe). Eo
ipso theoretical variables are unlimited, although we disregard them and
consider the incomplete models as fixed units with fixed quantities and
variables - cut within the applied boundaries.
Does this pertain to your - (?) - or just add to the confusion?
Within this train of thoughts are two 2004 pieces of mine one about a
'networking' view, the other about the (neglected or not) (inter)influencing
within this imaging: - (my website on
networking) and - (Karl Jaspers Forum
both for some bridging between wholistic and reductionistic aspects - not
written for this list.

Finally: > You are hard with yourself, no?< not really. I am willing to
change my mind if there is a better argument to do so - one which "I" find

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

> 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
> >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
> >a cognitive inventory of the mind which was much poorer than the lately
> >absorbed enrichments. I appreciate their wisdom, as 'function of mind',
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >unlimited variabilities upon which a mathematician friend remarked:
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >And I did not ask for "CONSISTENT" belief systems, before I even know
> >kinds may exist at all.
> Arithmetical consistency is very large (by Godel). Indeed even
> 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
> >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),
> >used it later, beyond arithmetics, mostly by my slide ruler, while
> >and implementing a pioneering-worldlevel industrial branch, 38 patents,
> >consulting (and solving technical production-problems) on 3 continents
> >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:
> The others can download it for its 8 + 1 pictures which talks by
themselves ...
> > I am ready for a coffee, myself.
> Enjoy it,
> Bruno
Received on Wed Jul 07 2004 - 18:38:51 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST