I went to see your points 1-8, as suggested. I started
to read AT THE BEGINNING and got stupefait
(perplexed?) by your sentences. First: I don't
appreciate thought experiments: they are artifacts to
show something NOT TRUE and make 'the truth' shown by
it (eg. EPR). People love them because it leads them
into the world of HP.
People like fairytales. I like the ones I found out. 
I got stuck with the term 'subastitution' especially
when it became a 's'-level. 
My eyes got glazed as I read on and less and less of
your words "matgerialized" into meaning. Then came a
cute figure (1) reminding me of Star Trek. I loved it
as an anusing fairy tale.  Then less and less reading
occurred with conceptual following and more and more
This was not the first time I looked at your text.
This time I made up my mind that I want to stay with
it: I could not. 

I hope you did not refer to the old joke that given
infinite time, "10 monkeys pounding at typewriters
would write down Shakespear's total oeuvre"? They (the
monkeys) worked with identical meaning: LETTERS, not 

Maybe I was looking for MY problem. I have no problem
with imagioning 'big enough' (un-ordered) sequences of
numbers and accepting that ALL possible SEQUENCES (of
numbers) will come up in them, I have a problem how
ANY OF THEM (numbers) may carry the reference of "the
4th movement choir in the IXth Symphony by Beethoven"?
Or to "my overcooked lunch of yesterday". i AM
'LIVING' IN THESE, (terms, qualia, etc.) not in
(*=ad infinitum). I even postulated to extend binary 
into infinitary as a basis of comp(?) it is still
N U M B E R S  not the memory of my first lovemaking. 

So your text escaped my endurance and I could not stay
with your arguments. I looked at  Benford's law, it
was just another math-class. 

I find an 'irrelevancy' between numbers of any kind
and  non-numbers of meaning-qualia. I have no key to
transform between the incompatibility of democracy and
the compatibility of 'big'  numbers. 
Your '666' is duly included in that fragment you
showed, but I hope it does not mean Apocalyptic devil?

Now you may agree that I am simpleminded, even a
stubborn one at that.

Anything at "my" level?


--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> 
> 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
> > number).
> 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:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BenfordsLaw.html
> But, with big numbers all digits, and all sequences
> of digits appears 
> almost everywhere.
> And there is nothing deep here. I was just
> illustrating a minor 
> technical point. It is  totally unrelated to
> universal dovetailing for 
> example.
> > 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 
> Levy.
> > 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 
> in:
> and please feel free to ask or to tell me whioch
> step would make 
> problem.
> 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.
> 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 

Reply via email to