Hi all,
It's very interesting to see these ideas. Common people can understand
common languages (like English, Chinese etc.).
So I think even the most difficult math. or physics theories can be
translated into other common languages that
common people can understand easily.
I don't see why common people can not understand the most difficult math.
equations.
Those math. equations or theorems should be just like one language that can
be translated into another common
language that everyone can understand.
Thanks.
WC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
[mailto:everything-list.domain.name.hidden] On Behalf Of John M
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:01 AM
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)
Bruno,
George wrote an admirably wise note and you picked positively on the
roadmap with the fruitful mind of a logician.
It looks like you both start out from "not agreeing because of
non-understanding math sufficiently" - which may be true, but not
necessarily the "real" root.
I think many of us have the wrong information about 'math' in question. You
called "numbers" the series of '1,2,3...many' and "we" think 'math' is a
manipulation of such, even if many substitute and functional symbols are
used.
My question (and I asked it several times here and on diverse other lists
and got no satisfactory answer) - still prevails:
What are (in the new meaning) NUMBERS - how can we handle the non-number
concepts by numbers - (whatever they are)? Rephrased: What is the 'new'
meaning of "math" and how can non-math concepts be handled by math?
Norman touched it, 1Z goes around it, David Bohm even went that far as to
state: numbers (and so math) are human inventions, probably based on Plato,
who made the biggest (philosophical) argument - as the product of HIS
mind.
Words are loaded with different meanings and people tend to use their
favorite - mostly from the mother tongue. I admire George's open mind
accepting the diverse positions and I am also no missionary who wants to
convert people, but even if I think differently, I like to follow the
mental ways of others. It may add usefully to my own thinking.
So I propose a 'starting' point to the 'roadmap':
How may one consider the new version(s) of number and math instead of the
arithmetic-based and binary computer founded conventional ignorance? (It is
not a 101 course what this list should be above, it may draw in
'more-sided' opinions into the discussion - which is now pretty much on the
math - physics base only. Extending to other planes of 'everything'.)
Then we may proceed in understanding the 'stuffy' matter (as e.g.. a photon
- ha ha) and the physicists' concepts mostly based on some mathematical
application, including the most esoteric 'everything' topics.
After all that I may try to speak about my ways how I am not in controversy
with all that - only regarding it as a partial view of the totality (which
is hard to talk about). Not for converting you or others, just for proving
to myself some (Levy-type) sanity.
So how should I include the validity of a legal opinion into the numbers?
How should I 'comp'(?) the feeling of love? How should I 'materialize'
(physically?) the beauty of a sunset?
(all without flattening those qualia into a quantitative plane)?
Eager to learn
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)
Hi George,
A roadmap could be a very good idea. I will think about it.
I will keep on your level notions:
-kids
-grandmother
-colleagues
(But not in any normative sense: I know kids who are better in math than
colleagues, and I know a family where the computer and the net has been
installed by the grand-grandmother! So here each one should judge by
him/herself on which level they to feel to be.
But a roadmap, some summaries ... are in need, sure. Not so easy of course.
Just let me think about it.
Note also that if I explain in plain english, what I say could appear as a
little weird, that is why I tend to be technical. And also, I don't know
much people who can swallow both Godel/Church... and Everett/Deutsch ...
Quantum information science can help, but this is a bit tricky by itself
when you want to be enough precise, and still a long way from Godel-lobian
notions.
In any case thanks for letting me know when I get too much technical.
Thanks to Norman who tries sometimes to convey a similar message, and
thanks to Tom for enjoying apparently the more technical posts ...., and
thanks to 1Z for playing the role of the skeptical one, and thanks to all
of you, especially Wei Dai, for the kind patience.
I will think about some roadmap, but also about some books which could
provide helps.
Feel free to say more on your "relativity"-information theory. Everyone can
talk I certainly don't want to monopolize the threads (but then I got a
result and I like to share with motivated people ...)...
Now I will leave my office before I liquefy completely ....
Bruno
Le 19-juil.-06, ?00:32, George Levy a 嶰rit :
Hi Bruno
Each one of us like to do what we do best and we apply our preferred
techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may solve the pollution
problem by building electric cars, and the cook may solve the same problem
by preparing vegetarian meals.
As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything using
mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP which is
strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.
I came up independently with my own concept involving a generalization of
relativity to information theory ( my background is engineering/physics)
and somehow we seem to agree on many points. Unfortunately I do not have
the background and the time to give my ideas a formal background. It is
just an engineering product and it feels right.
I believe that what you are saying is right, however I am having some
trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would help if you
outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the roadmap without
having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at every turn even
though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am sure. For example you
could use several levels of explanation: a first level would be as if your
were talking to your grandmother; a second level, talking to your kids (if
they listen); a last level, talking to your colleagues.
George
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 人氣搜尋，有齊城中熱門話題
http://www.msn.com.hk/hothits/default.asp
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Thu Jul 20 2006 - 04:42:52 PDT