Dear Bruno, thanks for your reply. Please, open up your mind to consider
what I was talking about: a *different* mindset, result of a *differrent*
evolutionary process - no mathematical (or call it whatever you wish:
computational, arithmetic, whatever) LOGIC like we have now, but *something*
That would not change the word, would, however change our views about it.
You asked questions
(> How different? <)
about this 'different' way *within* the ongoing terminology,
how "this 'other' would look if it wouldn't be 'other'."
Unfortunately I am also a product of a similar evolutionary process so I
cannot muster the 'different' ways, only think about the potential of such.
Good enough IMO for just another (unrealistic) thought-experiment.
> What is your god? <
I have none, but the term refers to a supernatural being deciding, even
organizing and 'creating' the existence (world?). In our "human" terms,
of course. By our "human" logic. Within our "human" computational
capabilites (or at least fitting such). Just as (my inadequate term)
mathematics - as I wrote.
(At least in the minds of many learned scientists).
Have a happy quantum eternity, just don't get bored after the first
30,000 years of doing what's given in the system. Playing the harp is
also a possibility. You may always resort to a quantum suicide.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: SAS and mathematical existence
> Hi John,
> > Digitality and its application is human invention and humans APPLY it to
> >the world.
> OK, but then the difference between human and non human is also a
> human invention, and humans apply it to what they see, or believe to see.
> >With a different evolutionary setup of brainfunctions we maight
> >have a different idea of the "mathematical".
> How different? Perhaps we might have discover the p-adic numbers first,
> or we would have always worked in finite fields Z_p, or we would have
> natural logarithmic capacities, or we would have quite different notions
> continua. But I don't think any of this can change the status of
> arithmetic, in which you can embed most of computer science proposition,
> including consistent discourse on numbers and machine.
> In a sense I agree with you for the large meaning of "mathematical", but
> concerning arithmetical proposition of the form
> It exists n such that P(n)
> with P decidable, can depend of me our us.
> >Would that change the world?
> > maybe someone could identify the "mathematical" in the sense as it
> >"exists" by itself. I think in "effects" not finding the "words" properly
> >describing them. If the 'mathematical' does describe them all properly,
it is >>still a description of something otherwise not identifiable, not the
> > I have the idea that the esteemed listmembers consider "the
> >as a god that created the world and rules its existence. By itself.
> OK for me, with "mathematical" (a very fuzzy term) replaced by
>"arithmetical" or better " computable".
> Those terms are still fuzzy, for example the set of all completely
> computable things is not itself computable, but, with CT
>(Church Thesis), the set of completely or not
> completely computable things is computable! (This is a consequence of
> diagonalisation closure see the diagonalisation post. It is what makes
>the UD possible). So we get the less we need to postulate if we hope
>being serious getting some explanation of us and the worlds.
What is the least you thing we should accept to get the rest?