On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
How do you explain the communicability of the meaning of these
axioms?
This is ambiguous.
It can mean "what does that mean?". In which case I refer you to
the explanation already give, notably recently on FOR. You can also
consult textbook.
Or you mean: 'how do you explain in the comp theory how 1-meaning
arise for such propositions'.
Well by comp the understanding (meaningful) is a complex
computation made in a brain. But a brain, when described digitally
at the comp subst level, appears to be a (Löbian) universal
number. He get the meaning by doing the right computations, which
exists by the comp hypothesis.
How? OK, that is an interesting and still different question,
partially solved, but containing also a part which cannot be
solved, yet can be explained, by the universal Löbian number
concerned, as being impossible to explain. The qualia aspect of any
understanding is treated by the X1* logic (the qualia logic).
You have written words like "sharable". Is that the explanation?
How does it work?
It works through the universal reality supporting population of
interacting universal numbers. Think of a program emulating the
entire Milky Way, at the level of strings, defined on some fields.
The UD, notably, dovetails on that.
The quantum aspect comes from the fact that an infinity of
universal numbers dovetail on that, and on all variants.
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain",
"solve", "interacting" and " emulating", mean in an atemporal
setting? You are mixing temporal and atemporal ideas. ...
Study a good book in theoretical computer science. You told me that
you have the book by Matiyazevich. he does explicitly emulate Turing
machine, which have a quite physical look, with a moving head, and
obeying instruction is a temporal manner, and yet they can be shown to
be emulated by a the existence or non existence of solution of
Diophantine equations.
But this is already no more an enigma for many physicists which agree
that temporality is just an illusion resulting from projection from
higher dimension.
I thought you agree that physics (and thus time) is not primitive.
This means that they can and need to be explain from non temporal
notion.
Arithmetic is the bloc mindspace. There is nothing more dynamical than
the notion of computations, yet, they have been discovered in statical
math structure. This is made possible as the statical sequence 0, 1,
2, 3, ... reintroduces a lot of quasi-time notion, and it is explained
how some of them will play the role of the "observable timing of
events" locally, by relative numbers.
Bruno
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
