Hi all,

It's very interesting to see these ideas. Common people can understand 
common languages (like English, Chinese etc.).
So I think even the most difficult math. or physics theories can be 
translated into other common languages that 
common people can understand easily.
I don't see why common people can not understand the most difficult math. 
Those math. equations or theorems should be just like one language that can 
be translated into another common
language that everyone can understand.



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John M
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)


George wrote an admirably wise note and you picked positively on the 
roadmap with the fruitful mind of a logician. 
It looks like you both start out from "not agreeing because of 
non-understanding math sufficiently" - which may be true, but not 
necessarily the "real" root. 

I think many of us have the wrong information about 'math' in question. You 
called "numbers" the series of '1,2,3...many' and "we" think 'math' is a 
manipulation of such, even if many substitute and functional symbols are 

My question (and I asked it several times here and on diverse other lists 
and got no satisfactory answer) - still prevails:
What are (in the new meaning) NUMBERS - how can we handle the non-number 
concepts by numbers - (whatever they are)? Rephrased: What is the 'new' 
meaning of "math" and how can non-math concepts be handled by math? 

Norman touched it, 1Z goes around it, David Bohm even went that far as to 
state: numbers (and so math) are human inventions, probably based on Plato, 
who made the biggest (philosophical) argument - as the product  of HIS 

Words are loaded with different meanings and people tend to use their 
favorite - mostly from the mother tongue.  I admire George's open mind 
accepting the diverse positions and I am also no missionary who wants to 
convert people, but even if I think differently, I like to follow the 
mental ways of others. It may add usefully to my own thinking. 

So I propose a 'starting' point to the 'roadmap':
How may one consider the new version(s) of number and math instead of the 
arithmetic-based and binary computer founded conventional ignorance? (It is 
not a 101 course what this list should be above, it may draw in 
'more-sided' opinions into the discussion - which is now pretty much on the 
math - physics base only. Extending to other planes of 'everything'.)

Then we may proceed in understanding the 'stuffy' matter (as e.g.. a photon 
- ha ha) and the physicists' concepts mostly based on some mathematical 
application, including the most esoteric 'everything' topics. 
After all that I may try to speak about my ways how I am not in controversy 
with all that - only regarding it as a partial view of the totality (which 
is hard to talk about). Not for converting you or others, just for proving 
to myself some (Levy-type) sanity. 

So how should I include the validity of a legal opinion into the numbers? 
How should I 'comp'(?) the feeling of love? How should I 'materialize' 
(physically?) the beauty of a sunset? 
(all without flattening those qualia into a quantitative plane)?

Eager to learn

John Mikes
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

Hi George,

A roadmap could be a very good idea. I will think about it. 
I will keep on your level notions:


(But not in any normative sense: I know kids who are better in math than 
colleagues, and I know a family where the computer and the net has been 
installed by the grand-grandmother! So here each one should judge by 
him/herself on which level they to feel to be.

But a roadmap, some summaries ... are in need, sure. Not so easy of course. 
Just let me think about it.
Note also that if I explain in plain english, what I say could appear as a 
little weird, that is why I tend to be technical. And also, I don't know 
much people who can swallow both Godel/Church... and Everett/Deutsch ... 
Quantum information science can help, but this is a bit tricky by itself 
when you want to be enough precise, and still a long way from Godel-lobian 

In any case thanks for letting me know when I get too much technical. 
Thanks to Norman who tries sometimes to convey a similar message, and 
thanks to Tom for enjoying apparently the more technical posts ...., and 
thanks to 1Z for playing the role of the skeptical one, and thanks to all 
of you, especially Wei Dai, for the kind patience.

I will think about some roadmap, but also about some books which could 
provide helps.

Feel free to say more on your "relativity"-information theory. Everyone can 
talk I certainly don't want to monopolize the threads (but then I got a 
result and I like to share with motivated people ...)...

Now I will leave my office before I liquefy completely ....


Le 19-juil.-06, ?00:32, George Levy a 嶰rit :

Hi Bruno

Each one of us like to do what we do best and we apply our preferred 
techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may solve the pollution 
problem by building electric cars, and the cook may solve the same problem 
by preparing vegetarian meals.

As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything using 
mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP which is 
strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.

I came up independently with my own concept involving a generalization of 
relativity to information theory ( my background is engineering/physics) 
and somehow we seem to agree on many points. Unfortunately I do not have 
the background and the time to give my ideas a formal background. It is 
just an engineering product and it feels right.

I believe that what you are saying is right,  however I am having some 
trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would help if you 
outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the roadmap without 
having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at every turn even 
though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am sure. For example you 
could use several levels of explanation: a first level would be as if your 
were talking to your grandmother; a second level, talking to your kids (if 
they listen); a last level, talking to your colleagues. 



MSN 人氣搜尋,有齊城中熱門話題 http://www.msn.com.hk/hothits/default.asp 

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