Bruno, 
I willbe thrilled: I oogled Plotinus and numbers and
now I lost even that faint idea I had about them.

As for assumptions: you "{assume" that on your
assumptions the position willo be an AMEN. 
What i asked is: how about: "I don't assume so" maybe
just that I find the assumption exaggrerated, 
uunfounded or just "not in my line"? 
Im any of these cases your train based on that
assumption sound hollow. 

Human elitist? For years I fight with "human only"
assumptio ns in many various domains (psych, societal,
wrc.) We are just 'another' animal, with different
evolutionary characteristics (better and worse,
depending what you search) and I frequently asked the
smarties: have you ever discussed it with a dog, a
fish, a bird, a bedbug, or any other creature?
(Including plants of course). I even asked a smarty if
he ever deciphered the medssage a dog left on a
treetrunk?

Of course I am a "human elitist, when it comes to
machines - especially WITHOUT a functional drive what
WE can switch on...(the cadaver of it)
Unless a TM means to you a FUNCTIONING TM? to me it is
a device to be used as designed hooked on juice.
Stuffy reality? stuffy as in matter, or closed miond? 
I deny our access to reality. only as our percept for
the parts we discovered so far. And no 'matter' as
well. 

John


--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Le 20-mars-06, à 00:04, John M a écrit :
> 
> 
> > A Turing machine does nothing (by itself). Don't
> take
> > the power for granted. Something has to OPERATE it
> to
> > do anything.
> 
> 
> Why?  How could a digital machine distinguish
> reality, virtual reality, 
> arithmetical reality, etc.
> (well, she can't. That has been showed by the movie
> graph argument, 
> and/or Olympia's mauldin argument).
> 
> Do you postulate a stuffy reality?
> 
> I respect all assumptions, but some conversation can
> go into loops if 
> we forget to make precise what we are assuming, at
> least informally.
> 
> 
> 
> > Bruno:
> > let me draw your attention to one little phrasing
> in
> > Hal's (and everybody else's, I presume, as I read
> > these posts)- text:
> > "If we assume..."
> > And if we do not?
> 
> 
> You will miss the consequences of the assumption.
> All science is based 
> on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non
> definable) 
> world-views.
> 
> 
> 
> > What the hell are those "numbers"???
> 
> 
> I find you hard with the numbers and/or with the
> machines. Are you not 
> "human-elitist"?
> I will try someday to explain you (if you agree)
> that before Godel, it 
> looked normal to say that numbers/machines are
> simple and that we can 
> know what they are all about. After Godel, we are
> forced to be modest 
> with the realm of numbers. With the comp hyp, we can
> add that we know 
> that we just know quasi-nothing about them, and this
> forever. There is 
> just no finite TOE for the numbers.
> 
> Perhaps you could read Plotinus treatise on 
> "Numbers"? I don't know, 
> it is not so simple.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> 
> 
>
> 
> 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to