Le 05-avr.-06, à 22:35, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :

> Hi,
> Le Mercredi 5 Avril 2006 22:07, John M a écrit :
>> Stephen:
>> right on! (onwards, of course).
>> I did not mention the arts. Express "art" by numbers
>> and you killed the art.
> It is not a question to describe art by numbers... I'd say it is 
> totally
> unrelated, in a materialistic view don't you think you would kill the 
> art by
> describing it at molecular interaction level ?

Well said. Also "expressing art by number" can mean a lot of things. 
Today, you have movies and pictures and music on DVDs, and strictly 
speaking you get only a number on those DVDs.
More interesting:  to let the numbers express themselves: here are many 
primes expressing themselves through 1, 2, 3 ... up to 100 zeros of the 
wavy/spectral Zeta function:


I know there are much more fascinating pieces of "music"  "composed" by 
Including one which looks like Scarlatti Baroc Music, but I don't find 
it currently.

> The only problem I have with this idea (numbers...) is like I said in 
> the
> other mail I don't understand where *meaning* come from.

This is certainly mysterious.

> We can
> encode "information" in numbers, but without an observer/person (as 
> Tom said)
> the information is meaningless...

OK, but (obviously if we assume comp) the universal machine can play 
the role of the observer/person. It can decode numbers including 
itself, but then only partially, so that it faces and can infer the 
infinity of our ignorance. Without comp, I just point on the fact that 
"meaning" is as mysterious as a product of relations between numbers 
than as relations between atoms, wavesor your "molecular interactions"  
or actually anything third person describable. UDA shows that with 
comp, "meaning" is *more* mysterious when related to matter than 
related to (many) numbers.

> yet Tom said a person is an higher level
> system. Hmmm so numbers are the primary things that generates person 
> that
> generates meaning which generates numbers ? (I hope I'm not to unclear)

No. I mean you are not unclear for me. You got the point, it seems to 
me. Numbers generate numbers which generate numbers ... meaning appears 
from the point of views of relative number sequences or relative 
computational states ...



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