Bruno: #17 IS a prime, not by YOUR decision, within the system of digital (number-based) math - "invented and developed"(!!!) during a phase in humanity's mental evolution. (and do not forget that 'faith' is the source of evil - ha ha)
And: I may reverse your statement: >I have an argument that IF comp is true THEN nature emerge >from the >number.< in to: ^I have an argument that IF nature emerge from the number ^THEN comp is true * Nature? wrong choice of word for Brent's 'reality' (or: the one of which we develop the 'percept of reality'): our wholeness. Just musing. I object to "US" (WE) being 'carbon- based organisms: that is the body (if true) far from being 'us'. We are a complexity of interrelated effects by self-reflective relations in the unlimited environment of an ever changing entirety and our epistemic cognitive inventory included the part of it which can be assigned to some 'atomic-material' functions (wit parts of the ' body' the sum of which is 'less' than the "Aris-Total". ). * The "invariant laws of numbers" is only within the scope of "numbers and their churning around" (i.e. math). Without such 2+2=4 makes no sense and the world will still exist. * Br: "What you say could fit the comp frame." I did not believe that I am that smart. Br: "Leibniz attributes the digital to the Chinese." IMO: analogue is a more advanced level than digital and the simpler can come out from the more sophisticated, so there is nothing amazing in Leibnitz's idea - however: The "Digital" concept changed a lot lately and - maybe - Leibnitz did not analyze his statement in comparison with the Si-chip digital computer science. What he might have referred to - I think - is that the "numbers" arose from the ancient ways of thinking in the oriental wisdom. (There is a German proverb: "Wirf die Katz... = no matter how you throw it, it (me) comes to the same conclusion <G>) * A final remark: I was hiding the idea that what I 'named' as the 'analogue' may be different from the concept we use it for in our present discourse (cognitive level). I am not sure we CAN understand it at all today. We have a hint, a glimpse - and are SO smart,,, - we talk about it. Thanks for paying attention to my blurb and reflect to ideas I was hiding within. John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary? Le 07-juil.-06, à 23:31, John M a écrit : > > > Bruno: > > I speculated about my problems why I follow your (and > others') expressions with difficulty. I was capable to > understand concepts in diverse sciences and now I have > to reflect about fitting 'comp', 'UDA', 'YesDoctor', > even 'arithmetical Plationism' etc. into the flowing > considerations. Your remark: >> ... arithmetical truth is >> not a personal construction....< > made me muse: is it a Ding an sich? a god? I am just saying that I have faith in the fact that the number 17 is prime, independently of me. > together > with your absolutistic fundamental 'number' concept it > echoes in my mind how reasonable I found David Bohm's > words: "there are no numbers in nature, they are human > inventions" with a rebuff at another list: I agree that there is no number in nature, but then I don't believe in nature as something fundamental and primitive. Please accept this as a summary of I have an argument that IF comp is true THEN nature emerge from the number. > Are "WE" > not parts of nature? As carbon based organism, yes. Again I don't follow the dogma that nature is primitive. > if numbers exist in our mind, are > they not "IN" nature? ... I don't believe that numbers exists in anything. I just believe that I am not so important that would I disappear, suddenly 5 becomes even. > I found both the con and pro reasonable. To combine it > with your quoted above statement - which I find no > less reasonable - I 'tasted' the "personal" vs. the > "human". > Add to that your undebatable "non-solipsistic" as well Thanks for telling. > > > NOBODY constructs 'arithmetical truth' or 'numbers', > yet both are evolutionary features in recent human > intellect (2-3millennia). I do agree with this. But it is a secondary phenomenon, reflecting in fact the invariance of the laws of numbers (you know: 1+1=2, etc.) > To mediate on my dichotomy: > I may have a mental resistance in the way of absorbing > comp etc. because I think (new idea, so far not > surfaced in my mind) "nature" (whatever, existence, > wholeness, everything or else) is analogue and at the > present evolutionary epistemic level we reached the > digital logic and thinking, which is a simpler way in > its abrupt quantization than the all-encompassing > comparative analoguization. No problem, I am even interested in any attempt to build other varieties of comp. > > I cannot think "analogue-ly", such computers are in > dreamland and we only have vague notions about it, as > e.g. the famous: "qualitative is 'bad' quantitative". > I like to reverse it: a further evolved "less > quantitative (sort of analogue) will include wider > aspects than included within the limited quanti models > and provide more insight in a 'more dimensional' (not > meant as a coordinating axis) analogue view... OK. > > Such (subconscious?) inhibitions might have prevented > me of staying with your iridia (in the English version > - my 5th language) or in the better explanatory French > version, which language I follow even much poorer. > The fact that WE evolved into an understanding in the > course of human mental development in which things are > 'counted' more than just: 1,2,many - is a beginning. Yes. > "We" (=humanity) absorbed this mentality as we did the > reductionist ways of thinking, the mystique (nobody > "personally" invented the religions) the care for the > offsprings, or a regular breath-taking. Yet I > contemplate in my wholistic views a wider horizon way, > close to what we call analogue today, which the > digital logic has yet to attain. Keep attention to what we will discover about the comp 1-person, It has many analog aspects. What you say could fit the comp frame. > The 'next' level of > thinking. > Maybe oriental thinking is closer to the analogue, > because they learn math 101 not digitally as our kids, Leibniz attributes the digital to the Chineses. > but pushing 'groups' of beads on the abacus - giving > some analogue image of the changing groups to start > with. > > This is not a criticism of western math skills, not an > argument against the Plato to Bruno line, it is an > idea and I don't intend to persuade anybody to > clomply. > (Allegedly the early computer-based anti-aircraft gun > aiming device of the Bofors Swedish product (WWII, > sold for the Germans) - before Turing got widely known > - was NOT digitally operated. I don't know about it, > but I heard that it worked by 'image-patterns' and > anticipated the moves of the airplane. Somebody may > know more about it). > > With unlimited analogous regards Thanks, we will have the opportunity to come back on the analog/digital and the conituum/discrete opposition many tiùmes. It does matter at some point, but comp shed light of the possible conception of the analogous by digital machines. 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
