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

## Advertising

* * * 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 ... >This >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. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal