I comment again George Levy for making
clearer where I disagree with James Higgo's last Post.

                           * * *                       

I wrote:

<< George Levy wrote:

   >> BM:..Positive integers exists. Nothing else.

   >This is a integercentric statement if I ever saw one. 

   BM: Oh ! George. You don't met Pythagore, or Xenocrate, ...
   in the plenitude. Do you? >>

                           * * * 

I should have answered: "Of course it is a
an integercentric statement!".

After all godel numbering makes immaterial program
number like and a slightly poetical version of the
turing-tropic view (turing-centric) view is that
I am a number.
And here we are not a long way from Xenocrate definition of
the soul: "a number which moves itself". (Like a
practionners of comp can live if you remember the TEs)

But of course "I am a number" taken literaly, is a
category mistake. From the third person point of view
I am much more like a cloud of numbers spreading in
a cloud of "real/complex" numbers. From a first person
point of you I am, obviously, a person, your servitor :-)

                           * * * 

James Higgo wrote:

>Wat am I? Obviously, 'I' am an Observer-Moment. 

This is the same category mistake. You are no more an
Observer-Moment than I am a number. Those are intellectual
constructions. I am sure that if by chance you travel
to Brussels, I will offer you a cup of coffee. Why would I
ever offer a cup of coffee to an observer-moment ?
And how would I?  The time to prepare the coffee and
you, dear observer-moment, disappear ...

>current OM, including writing this email, is not related 
>to 'remembered' OMs except in that the 'remembered' OMs do 
>happen to exist. 

So the 'remembered' relation (whatever it is) create a
link between observer-moments, isn't it? I need no more links
than that.

>There is no"I" that was one OM and then
>'became' this OM. The block universe is static.

I agree with both sentences. comp's block universe is UD*

>Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is
>unrelated to 'my current' OM. 

I hope not. Why ?

>But since all OMs exist I can be sure that
>there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this merde'.

Of course. There is an infinity of such OM in UD*.

I think we are disagreing mostly on pedagogy. Isn't it?

To make that OM-sort of enlightment third person accessible (science),
we must still explain the rarity of the OM 'I am Bruno and I am
reading this merde in company of ten thousand white rabbits'.

With comp there is a logical road to enlightment, modulo open
mathematical questions.



Reply via email to