Le 03-avr.-06, à 23:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

> Quentin:
> I don't know from your wink at the end whether you are half-serious or
> not.
> But just in case (and Bruno can do better than I can on this), I think
> I can correctly appeal to Peano's distinction between mathematical and
> linguistic paradox.  The meaning of the symbols is defined at a higher
> level than the encoding itself.

Yes, and the "gone with the wind" seemingly paradoxical statement does 
not depend of the encoding chosen. If you write the number with the 
base <keyboard>, it means that any humans looking at arbitrary big 
numbers will see the "usual english version of "gone with the wind". 
But the reasoning to show this does not depend of the base nor on any 
particular encodings.

I take the opportunity to recall a universal dovetailer is not 
equivalent with set of finite or even infinite strings. I will come 
back on this in a post "the heart of the matter" where I will try to 
make more precise what is the UD and what is the relation between the 
UD and the type G reasoner (and then the "hypostases" will appear by 
themselves, including a Plotinus-like theory of matter.

> Your statement turns on the word
> "chosen", which is a verb. This goes back to my other post in this
> thread that, in order to keep from going into an infinite regress of
> meaninglessness, defining meaning ultimately requires a person.

I agree with you. Now, in order of *defining* meaning through the 
notion of person, well, you need to *define* the notion of person. And 
this can be done with the comp hyp. At an informal level it can be done 
by the notion of transportable diary, like the one of the candidate for 
the self-duplication experiment which is supposed to be destroyed in 
teleportation experiment. At a formal level it can be done trough the 
modal variant which are forced by the incompleteness argument (this 
leads to the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus notion of "person" 
called "hypostase".

But all this has quasi noting to do with the fact that all finite 
strings appears in almost all big numbers. We don't need any notion of 
meaning for stating this. I give a hint for the proof: show first that 
in the usual base "10", the absence of "9" is rare. Then generalize.



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 

Reply via email to