Le 04-avr.-06, à 21:24, John M wrote:
> Bruno, you failed to give me an answer. I must be more
> simpleminded than you 'math-minded people' who "see"
> some relation between a 'big' number and the Gone with
> the Wind. I don't. No matter how big and how long (you
> said: eternity and infinitely big? I don't buy such
> conditions. These say to me: it is all hogwash. Of
> course a hogwash can be 'seen' in a big enough
I think you are not simpleminded enough! Do you agree that the string
"666" occurs in the string "12345666789". All what I say is that with
big numbers (but still finite) the sequence "<insert the text of "Gone
with the wind" here> occurs in almost all sufficiently big numbers. It
*is* amazing, but no one talk about meaning here.
BTW, if you look at all "concrete" (and thus "little" numbers occurring
in real life (numbers of page of a book, statistical data on comets,
house numbering in street, etc.) then the statement is false. The
distribution of the digit are then given by log(n) -log(n+1), that is 1
is more frequent than 2 which is more frequent than 3, etc. It is
Benford empirical law. Rather well verified ... and apparently
explained by Hill. See:
But, with big numbers all digits, and all sequences of digits appears
And there is nothing deep here. I was just illustrating a minor
technical point. It is totally unrelated to universal dovetailing for
> Not to speak of ANY heaven, especially Plato's, with
> his cognitive inventory of the 25 centuries ago level.
> I don't care if someone substitutes Jesus Christ or
> Mohammed with Plato, I don't buy it.
> I would buy it if I can follow the reasoning what I
> asked and you did not provide. The trransition between
> the numbers and the meaning the allegedly refer to, as
> eg. a transition between physiological measurements
> and personal experience at Chalmers. (How many ergs
> make 1 1/2 love?)
> In your post iop^$qsdfghjklmù£wxcvbn,;:=>AWQZSXT means
> obviously numbers. OK, but do you have for the
> integers some similar 'rule' as meaning as in letters
> within one particular language? Does 5694 mean shit?
First I don't see either an explanation how "matter" can help for those
question, and I provide an argument showing that any objective notion
of matter makes things much worse. How numbers can think? At least
there are clues from theoretical computer science and number theory.
There is no reason to expect a simple theory here, as most theories are
not simple especially in first encounter. And as a theory, no one ask
you to believe in it. I will give the main clue in my post to George
> It seems the Bohmian statement ('there are no numbers
> in 'nature' - meaning existence, world, you name it)
> has been reversed into "the world is in numbers" - I
> do not see how and why - and I believe I am not alone
> with such ignorance.
The explanation is the Universal Dovetailer Argument. Read the step 1-8
and please feel free to ask or to tell me whioch step would make
But remember I *postulate* comp. It is my *working* hypothesis.
Note that Bohm postulates NOT COMP (in his book on the intricate
order). Hery has
a different basic theory of mind.
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