Le 07-juil.-06, à 23:31, John M a écrit :
>
>
> Bruno:
>
> I speculated about my problems why I follow your (and
> others') expressions with difficulty. I was capable to
> understand concepts in diverse sciences and now I have
> to reflect about fitting 'comp', 'UDA', 'YesDoctor',
> even 'arithmetical Plationism' etc. into the flowing
> considerations. Your remark:
>> ... arithmetical truth is
>> not a personal construction....<
> made me muse: is it a Ding an sich? a god?
I am just saying that I have faith in the fact that the number 17 is
prime, independently of me.
> together
> with your absolutistic fundamental 'number' concept it
> echoes in my mind how reasonable I found David Bohm's
> words: "there are no numbers in nature, they are human
> inventions" with a rebuff at another list:
I agree that there is no number in nature, but then I don't believe in
nature as something fundamental and primitive. Please accept this as a
summary of I have an argument that IF comp is true THEN nature emerge
from the number.
> Are "WE"
> not parts of nature?
As carbon based organism, yes. Again I don't follow the dogma that
nature is primitive.
> if numbers exist in our mind, are
> they not "IN" nature? ...
I don't believe that numbers exists in anything. I just believe that I
am not so important that would I disappear, suddenly 5 becomes even.
> I found both the con and pro reasonable. To combine it
> with your quoted above statement - which I find no
> less reasonable - I 'tasted' the "personal" vs. the
> "human".
> Add to that your undebatable "non-solipsistic" as well
Thanks for telling.
>
>
> NOBODY constructs 'arithmetical truth' or 'numbers',
> yet both are evolutionary features in recent human
> intellect (2-3millennia).
I do agree with this. But it is a secondary phenomenon, reflecting in
fact the invariance of the laws of numbers (you know: 1+1=2, etc.)
> To mediate on my dichotomy:
> I may have a mental resistance in the way of absorbing
> comp etc. because I think (new idea, so far not
> surfaced in my mind) "nature" (whatever, existence,
> wholeness, everything or else) is analogue and at the
> present evolutionary epistemic level we reached the
> digital logic and thinking, which is a simpler way in
> its abrupt quantization than the all-encompassing
> comparative analoguization.
No problem, I am even interested in any attempt to build other
varieties of comp.
>
> I cannot think "analogue-ly", such computers are in
> dreamland and we only have vague notions about it, as
> e.g. the famous: "qualitative is 'bad' quantitative".
> I like to reverse it: a further evolved "less
> quantitative (sort of analogue) will include wider
> aspects than included within the limited quanti models
> and provide more insight in a 'more dimensional' (not
> meant as a coordinating axis) analogue view...
OK.
>
> Such (subconscious?) inhibitions might have prevented
> me of staying with your iridia (in the English version
> - my 5th language) or in the better explanatory French
> version, which language I follow even much poorer.
> The fact that WE evolved into an understanding in the
> course of human mental development in which things are
> 'counted' more than just: 1,2,many - is a beginning.
Yes.
> "We" (=humanity) absorbed this mentality as we did the
> reductionist ways of thinking, the mystique (nobody
> "personally" invented the religions) the care for the
> offsprings, or a regular breath-taking. Yet I
> contemplate in my wholistic views a wider horizon way,
> close to what we call analogue today, which the
> digital logic has yet to attain.
Keep attention to what we will discover about the comp 1-person, It has
many analog aspects.
What you say could fit the comp frame.
> The 'next' level of
> thinking.
> Maybe oriental thinking is closer to the analogue,
> because they learn math 101 not digitally as our kids,
Leibniz attributes the digital to the Chineses.
> but pushing 'groups' of beads on the abacus - giving
> some analogue image of the changing groups to start
> with.
>
> This is not a criticism of western math skills, not an
> argument against the Plato to Bruno line, it is an
> idea and I don't intend to persuade anybody to
> clomply.
> (Allegedly the early computer-based anti-aircraft gun
> aiming device of the Bofors Swedish product (WWII,
> sold for the Germans) - before Turing got widely known
> - was NOT digitally operated. I don't know about it,
> but I heard that it worked by 'image-patterns' and
> anticipated the moves of the airplane. Somebody may
> know more about it).
>
> With unlimited analogous regards
Thanks, we will have the opportunity to come back on the analog/digital
and the conituum/discrete opposition many tiùmes. It does matter at
some point, but comp shed light of the possible conception of the
analogous by digital machines.
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 Sat Jul 08 2006 - 13:20:43 PDT