Re: Intensionality (was: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE)

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:29:04 +0200

Le 05-avr.-06, à 22:35, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :

> Hi,
> Le Mercredi 5 Avril 2006 22:07, John M a écrit :
>> Stephen:
>> right on! (onwards, of course).
>> I did not mention the arts. Express "art" by numbers
>> and you killed the art.
> It is not a question to describe art by numbers... I'd say it is
> totally
> unrelated, in a materialistic view don't you think you would kill the
> art by
> describing it at molecular interaction level ?

Well said. Also "expressing art by number" can mean a lot of things.
Today, you have movies and pictures and music on DVDs, and strictly
speaking you get only a number on those DVDs.
More interesting: to let the numbers express themselves: here are many
primes expressing themselves through 1, 2, 3 ... up to 100 zeros of the
wavy/spectral Zeta function:

I know there are much more fascinating pieces of "music" "composed" by
Including one which looks like Scarlatti Baroc Music, but I don't find
it currently.

> The only problem I have with this idea (numbers...) is like I said in
> the
> other mail I don't understand where *meaning* come from.

This is certainly mysterious.

> We can
> encode "information" in numbers, but without an observer/person (as
> Tom said)
> the information is meaningless...

OK, but (obviously if we assume comp) the universal machine can play
the role of the observer/person. It can decode numbers including
itself, but then only partially, so that it faces and can infer the
infinity of our ignorance. Without comp, I just point on the fact that
"meaning" is as mysterious as a product of relations between numbers
than as relations between atoms, wavesor your "molecular interactions"
or actually anything third person describable. UDA shows that with
comp, "meaning" is *more* mysterious when related to matter than
related to (many) numbers.

> yet Tom said a person is an higher level
> system. Hmmm so numbers are the primary things that generates person
> that
> generates meaning which generates numbers ? (I hope I'm not to unclear)

No. I mean you are not unclear for me. You got the point, it seems to
me. Numbers generate numbers which generate numbers ... meaning appears
from the point of views of relative number sequences or relative
computational states ...


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 Fri Apr 07 2006 - 11:30:22 PDT

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