Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE

From: John M <>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:24:38 -0700 (PDT)


you failed to give me an answer. I must be more
simpleminded than you 'math-minded people' who "see"
some relation between a 'big' number and the Gone with
the Wind. I don't. No matter how big and how long (you
said: eternity and infinitely big? I don't buy such
conditions. These say to me: it is all hogwash. Of
course a hogwash can be 'seen' in a big enough
Not to speak of ANY heaven, especially Plato's, with
his cognitive inventory of the 25 centuries ago level.

I don't care if someone substitutes Jesus Christ or
Mohammed with Plato, I don't buy it.
I would buy it if I can follow the reasoning what I
asked and you did not provide. The trransition between
the numbers and the meaning the allegedly refer to, as
eg. a transition between physiological measurements
and personal experience at Chalmers. (How many ergs
make 1 1/2 love?)
In your post iop^$qsdfghjklmwxcvbn,;:=>AWQZSXT means
obviously numbers. OK, but do you have for the
integers some similar 'rule' as meaning as in letters
within one particular language? Does 5694 mean shit?

I mentioned some days ago the library-decimal system
where numbers can get you to ANYTHING in the world. It
was a misguided example, because there is a legend for
meanings as expressed in number-code and not vice

One more thing: " base 10..." why? because some
Indian (Arab) had a decimal imagination and not 19 as
the Bahai? or 5 as the Asian forefathers of the
Hungarians? Is our present human thinking good enough
for basing the "entire world" on it?

It seems the Bohmian statement ('there are no numbers
in 'nature' - meaning existence, world, you name it)
has been reversed into "the world is in numbers" - I
do not see how and why - and I believe I am not alone
with such ignorance.

Can you help without changing my way of thinking upon
20,000 pages attentively read about things I don't
care for?
Do you have a 'simple' explanation "for all"?
(I mean mediocre scientists)?

Sorry for my stubborn stupidity


--- Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

> John ,
> >
> > Bruno:
> >
> > Aren't you fall back in your 2nd par at the end
> into
> > an 'idem per idem' explanation?
> > I asked (from Georges) a way to GET AWAY from the
> > number-essence or ID when we assign (con)ceptual
> > meanings to ideas/things "you people" call NUMBERS
> > ONLY. You return to a number-based activity in
> your
> > question.
> >
> > Who is to "think" of the "English version of Gone
> with
> > the wind" when looking at an 'arbitrary big'
> number?
> Anyone comfortably installed in Plato Heaven, having
> eternity of time
> to waste, + an infinite suppy of coffee cups (or
> tea).
> John I could have take a finite string with no
> meaning at all. Instead
> of "Gone with the wind" I could have taken
> "azertyuiop^$qsdfghjklmwxcvbn,;:=>AWQZSXTH.M%/?
> NYUIOPRBFZAAyuiop^$qsdfghjklm" instead, or in base
> 10, *any* number:
> like 666,666,666,666,666,666,666,666,666,667.
> My point was not even philosophical, although
> perhaps I was implicitly
> trying to suggest that occurrences of strings in
> other strings have no
> much big meaning with respect to the question we are
> talking about. My
> point was just: no need to take infinite decimal for
> those occurences
> to occur with probability near 1, just *big* numbers
> are enough.
> > The more important part is: and WHY?
> The problem, of course is that big numbers contains
> "gone with the
> wind" but also all version with all sort of
> orthographical errors, etc.
> We need an exemplar of "gone with the wind" to
> compare it with the
> version occurring in the big numbers, so there is no
> reason to make
> that search.
> > I can think of a 'meaning' when I look at the
> infinite
> > number of pi (metaphorically speaking) and it is:
> > meaning is not prone to be expressed in decimal
> > numbers (the reason of its infinite unexpressebla,
> > uncodable variety) it is simply and only "pi" as
> > described in geometrical terms.
> Well, why? pi has many aspects. geometrical,
> arithmetical, analytical,
> physical, probabilistical, philosophical, etc. All
> are interesting,
> imo. Of course, specific interest will depend of the
> context.
> > But I am a
> > simpleminded commonsense person, not a
> mathematician.
> Are you suggesting that mathematician lack
> simplemindedness or
> commonsense or both ?
> I doubt that.
> :)
> Bruno

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Apr 04 2006 - 15:43:37 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST