this is to your reflections to my remarks. It starts
to look like a private discussion on-list, but I love
it. We are not on 'opposite' sides, just think
Or just express ourselves differently. -
--- Georges Qu�not <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John M wrote:
> > Georges: please, have merci on me! 'my' English is
> > the 5th of my acquired languages, so to read - and
> > realize what it stands for - that long a post is
> > (almost) beyond my mental endurance.
> I understand that but the point is highly unusual
> and unintuitive and I felt that a "critical mass"
> was necessary for it to make is way.
> > I try to pick some of your remarks as non-conform
> > how I feel. Consider please the rest as agreed.
> > least for now - ha ha - which means the <G> I
> wrote, a
> > usual WEB-abbreviation for <Grin>.
> Sorry, I dont even know <Grin>.
[[ "grin" is IMO something like sourie moquée . Not a
sweet smile, but not hostile either. A bit ironique.
I may be wrong.]]
> > ...QM-nightmare.
> Yes. But this is not only QM as a human mind
> It really seems that the world in which we live is
> like that (Who can be cruel enough to design a world
> like that and have sensible creatures living into
[Amen about that]
> Yes also and indeed, the way of thinking I presented
> fits within a reductionist framework. Nobody is
> to adhere to such a framework (and therefore to the
> of thinking I presented). If one rejects the
> approach, all I can say isn't even worth reading it
> him. And, again, all of this is pure speculation.
[Reductionist thinking is the way the human mind CAN
function at our present level. To select portions of
the wholeness as our 'topics' and regard them
separately. Where I turn negative about it is the
habit of science (and other human thinking as well) to
draw universal conclusions from details learned within
such models - extending it to the domains BEYOND such
That is eg. how geocentric 'findings' were extended
into the stellar movements in Ptolemistic views, or
bio-physiologic 'findings' are substituted for mental
events and their ORIGINATION. Or the physicalization
of nonphysical sciences. Etc.
I find reductionist exploration/science successful in
learning about the 'world' for constructing
Theoretically, however, I like to 'TRY' to consider
the "wholeness" (which I do not identify as TOE or
Hal's everything. I simply cannot identify it as of
today, which does not induce me to accept an
identification I disagree with. Like: omnipotens
> > A physicist once retorted: "I can live with
> > well, I cannot. I rather rely on MY common sense,
> > if it is "not on the level".
> You are free to rely on whatever you want. However,
> seems that we have no choice about the world we live
[Of course we have: you choose one eplanatory way I
another. We both assume and hypothesize. Speculate.
Then the bullies argue that only THEIR ideas are true.
What do they do: select a (reductionist) model of ways
to think (like: mathematical ways) and stone those who
like another way better. ]
> >> [...]
> I would say that we discovered them. The argument (a
> weak one I concede) is that we did not have so much
> freedom while doing so. We find and proved that the
> Fermat's conjecture was true and we *could not* find
> that is was false. This constraint is intemporal and
> it exists whether there are men or not and even
> whether there is something or not (but there cannot
> be nothing because there is least this constraint).
> The set of such constraints is likely to include or
> define that natural numbers themselves.
[Good game with our 'discovery'. WE paly it according
to the level we can think in. I consider that there
are other levels, too, different from OUR mathematical
logic because the totality is unrestricted. So we may
have an explanation WITHIN math, but there MAY BE (in
Hal's "all possible cases") other types as well and if
we close our minds before 'other ways', we incarcerate
ourselves into our today's stupidity.
Don't ask me about those "other ways": I am not (YET?
> >> not only natural numbers but also real numbers,
> >> Hilbert spaces and all the "higher level objects"
> >> that "comes with".
> > As you said above: "this is speculation indeed".
[Hilbert spaces make me genuflect. Did not Hilbert
himself revoke his teachings when he became old?]
> Indeed, I identified at least four speculations on
> which the explanation rely upon. I don't see for
> any of them any way to rationally make an opinion.
> I did not find for any of them any decisive argument
> for or against and I can't even imagine on what such
> an argument could rely upon (indeed, common sense is
> excluded). Furthermore, it happens that many people
> sharing the same biology and even the same culture
> have very different opinions about them.
[You see? we are not identically designed machines.]
> >> Let's also consider the possibility that the
> >> universe in which we live strictly follows some
> >> "mathematical rules" and that it is completely
> >> determined by them (this is another speculation).
[That is a conjecture based on the 2006 limited level
of our epistemic enrichment. We will become smarter in
time and will know more, better. There were pretty
firm notions about how the 'universe' (world?) works
before and after Copernicus, and they all changed.
Why do you assume our present level as the perfect and
omniscient 'total' wisdom achievable at all?]
> > (((JM??))):
> > I don't think this is attributable to English: in
> > languages people speak in reverse: The universe
> > whatever Bruno may call it) does not FOLLOW any
> > that humans derive from their ways of thinking -
> > explaining the (easily misunderstood)
> observations. We
> > observe, evaluate (right or wrong) and deduct
> > (again right or wrong). As long as they do not
> > into contradiction, we pride ourselves by "nature
> > following our rules". When the tachyons showed
> > speed than 'c' the verdict was "wrong
> > not a speed exceeding Einstein's assumed limit for
> > nature.
> This is a speculation. It might be that the universe
> in which we live is completely ruled by mathematical
> laws. Indeed one can doubt of that or believe it but
> can't see how this can be either proved or refuted.
> >> This is equivalent to say that this universe is
> >> isomorphic to one of the above mentionned "higher
> > level objects".
> > ((JM)):Nice words. Do they mean something?
> This means something to me. I would say that meaning
> is relative to individuals or group of individuals.
> I understand that this might not mean anything to
> other people just as what other people sometimes
> refer to has no precsie meaning to me.
> >> The last and hard point is that, from a
> >> point of view, all the objects that are
> >> one to another are the same mathematical object
> >> as there is only one set of natural numbers, no
> >> matter how is is built) and, if the universe is
> >> isomorphic to a mathematical object, it could
> just be
> >> this mathematical object.
> > ((JM)):
> > I think I can decipher what you wrote (?),
> > "from a mathematical point of view" (if not,
> > Isomorphic requires the ONE set of characteristics
> > are 'allolwed' to use, while 'nature' is
> I don't understand you here.
[morphology is one way to represent things. Isomorphic
is a match WITHIN THIS ONE PLANE of view. Try another
- call it 'dimensiom? - and your isomorphic will be a
No-Match different pair.
I always remember Mr Square from Abbott's Flatland,
the 2D guy. He was sent to the nuthouse by his 2D
people because hi considered and spoke about a 3rd
Let me please reflect to the 2nd part of your post as
a reply to it re-mailed today to the list/
=== message truncated ===
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at