Dear John,

At 16:50 05/07/04 -0400, you wrote:
Bruno, I really cannot work this way. I still prepare to reply to your
earlier post (to me) and here I have the repost on the "1st part"
with lots to be replied upon. <G>.

Take it easy.

I am in debt with ~30,000 books I did not read. Never will.

This is 29,999 books too much. Just read the Smullyan little bible: "Forever Undecided" IF you want ease the understanding of the reversal ...

How much time
may I have left? 30-40 years? (I am pushing 83). Will my mind give up? My
hip did already. (My fingers did not, I still perform classical piano-music
for a local-public audience - next: October).

Nice. I'm about 50, and serious jaws problems ... You know one of my best Saturday Course student is 87.

So I gave up checking on past millennia wisdom and work on the present -
absorbed and developed for myself since retirement. The oldies speculated in
a cognitive inventory of the mind which was much poorer than the lately
absorbed enrichments. I appreciate their wisdom, as 'function of mind', but
the conclusions MAY be old. I am not a judge of that, but can stay out of
such argumentations.
"Comp", "QM", you ask? Aren't they within the mindset of the minds within
THIS universe, which I deemed "human ways" of thinking?

To be frank I do think Comp and QM are more universal than human, and
perhaps what *is* human is to considere comp and QM as human thinking.
Got argument that those belongs to all possible universes, or better all possible

Same good old
math-conceptualization. I am talking about something not-matching. Cohen and
Stewart played such tunes in their enjoyable books (Collapse of Chaos and
Figments of Reality) - their "aliens", the Zarathustrans, with their
octimalization (8?). Of course that was still sort of "human" switch, a bit
of Tao etc.

I read many of your web text. You did defend sort of naturalism isn't it?
I tend to consider that the opposition natural/artificial is ... artificial (and thus natural).

>> "truth" is an object of study by logicians.<< My best wishes for them. I
went through many 'thruths' - different religious ones, reincarnational,
pragmatic natural science, astrology, Indian,

We are not talking of the same "truth". I talk about many different ways
to just talk about the concept. Just tools for being able to go through
many "truth" is a non confusing way.

Marxist, Leninist, atheist (who require a god to deny),

In the first page of the introduction to "Conscience et Mecanisme" I
explain that atheist are believers indeed.

every one had
something attractive, but...
and settled with my scientific agnosticism: not even the contrary is true of
what people believe. (That really came from politics).

I am a scientific agnostic too. (Agnostic to nature, universe, matter, ...).
But I cannot doubt 1+1 is 2, except for some minutes before the first (or the second
I never know) cup of coffee ...

If you go into "variables": my wholistic views allow no fixed conditions and
unlimited variabilities upon which a mathematician friend remarked: "well,
this is a bit steep". Only models can have boundaries, quantities, fixed
qualia etc. That goes also for QM (Comp I don't know, never let it clarify
in my mind).


Even "topics" are cut out from the extratopical wholeness.
Limited Models.
A map is a model, a territory a wider one. Most minds (on this and other
lists) work within a certain modeling (we cannot do better, that's the way
we can manage with the material tool we apply for thinking: the neuronal
brain, restricting the mind into "human" logic (oops!).
Is my wholistic thinking inept for achieveing practical conclusions? you bet
it is. We just started to tackle with such ideas, have to find suitable
concepts and (formulate?) words to express them.

This is what I try to propose right now.

 >...(UDA) *forces* us to do: if comp is true we have to explain
> the physical appearances by a sort of mean on all consistent belief
> systems. <

Yes. IF! I cannot provide more.

- now the 'physical appearances' are the mind's interpretations upon
impact inknown, lately observed by instruments WITHIN this system of ours.
And I did not ask for "CONSISTENT" belief systems, before I even know what
kinds may exist at all.

Arithmetical consistency is very large (by Godel). Indeed even inconsistency
is consistent !!!!! (Godel' second theorem). Just let your mind accept classical
logic for a while, if only for the sake of the argument. Why not?

We know SOME, here and now,
pertinent to our cultural basis (human mindset of the present local(?!)
societal conditions).
I am consistent in my agnosticism. All argumentative support from within is
useless for without.


Now I can return to thinking about math (for the 2nd part reply), although I
don't know much about it. It was my elective in my Ph.D. work (1948), never
used it later, beyond arithmetics, mostly by my slide ruler, while inventing
and implementing a pioneering-worldlevel industrial branch, 38 patents,
consulting (and solving technical production-problems) on 3 continents over
4 decades. All in the simplest reductionist technical common sense

You are hard with yourself, no?
Look, John, you are quite lucky (with respect to my work) given that you know the french!
You can read my Changeux/Conne/comp recent paper here:
The others can download it for its 8 + 1 pictures which talks by themselves ...

I am ready for a coffee, myself.

Enjoy it,


Reply via email to