#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 
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 

John M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
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...


> 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.


> "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.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to