Bruno,
I willbe thrilled: I oogled Plotinus and numbers and
now I lost even that faint idea I had about them.
As for assumptions: you "{assume" that on your
assumptions the position willo be an AMEN.
What i asked is: how about: "I don't assume so" maybe
just that I find the assumption exaggrerated,
uunfounded or just "not in my line"?
Im any of these cases your train based on that
assumption sound hollow.
Human elitist? For years I fight with "human only"
assumptio ns in many various domains (psych, societal,
wrc.) We are just 'another' animal, with different
evolutionary characteristics (better and worse,
depending what you search) and I frequently asked the
smarties: have you ever discussed it with a dog, a
fish, a bird, a bedbug, or any other creature?
(Including plants of course). I even asked a smarty if
he ever deciphered the medssage a dog left on a
treetrunk?
Of course I am a "human elitist, when it comes to
machines - especially WITHOUT a functional drive what
WE can switch on...(the cadaver of it)
Unless a TM means to you a FUNCTIONING TM? to me it is
a device to be used as designed hooked on juice.
Stuffy reality? stuffy as in matter, or closed miond?
I deny our access to reality. only as our percept for
the parts we discovered so far. And no 'matter' as
well.
John
--- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Le 20-mars-06, à 00:04, John M a écrit :
>
>
> > A Turing machine does nothing (by itself). Don't
> take
> > the power for granted. Something has to OPERATE it
> to
> > do anything.
>
>
> Why? How could a digital machine distinguish
> reality, virtual reality,
> arithmetical reality, etc.
> (well, she can't. That has been showed by the movie
> graph argument,
> and/or Olympia's mauldin argument).
>
> Do you postulate a stuffy reality?
>
> I respect all assumptions, but some conversation can
> go into loops if
> we forget to make precise what we are assuming, at
> least informally.
>
>
>
> > Bruno:
> > let me draw your attention to one little phrasing
> in
> > Hal's (and everybody else's, I presume, as I read
> > these posts)- text:
> > "If we assume..."
> > And if we do not?
>
>
> You will miss the consequences of the assumption.
> All science is based
> on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non
> definable)
> world-views.
>
>
>
> > What the hell are those "numbers"???
>
>
> I find you hard with the numbers and/or with the
> machines. Are you not
> "human-elitist"?
> I will try someday to explain you (if you agree)
> that before Godel, it
> looked normal to say that numbers/machines are
> simple and that we can
> know what they are all about. After Godel, we are
> forced to be modest
> with the realm of numbers. With the comp hyp, we can
> add that we know
> that we just know quasi-nothing about them, and this
> forever. There is
> just no finite TOE for the numbers.
>
> Perhaps you could read Plotinus treatise on
> "Numbers"? I don't know,
> it is not so simple.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Mar 20 2006 - 12:01:56 PST