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

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


--- 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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to