Thanks, Bruno, for your helping effort.
It did not do too much for me because it started out
with 'assuming comp' which means: we need nothing more
than (number) trivialities and (as you wrote):
> Numbers protects the free mind against a *vast*
> class of reductionism....<
What I feel is the complete reductionism INTO numbers.
No wonder if 'they' protect us against other types. 

Your 'vanilla story' did not ring a bell in my mind to
an understganding about what you wrote. 

I learned that the square root of 2 is irrational, but
did not learn what 2 may be if not two kikcs in the
behind or two roses. Square rooting goes well within
your 'manipuklating numbers' what I believed similarly
to "Noah survived the flood". 
I call 'happiness of the mathematicians' the happiness
of the believers not questioning what "number" may be
and using them from pre-platonia on. 

I feel (not in numbers<G>) that your mind is working
in the numbers-maze so deeply that I doubt if your
help copuld really induce me (from the unbiased
outside) into the platonistic-Godelian number
crunching wisdom.

Thanks anyway for your friendly trying


--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Le 21-juil.-06, � 22:52, John M a �crit :
> > Could we talk 'topics' without going into
> trivialities what every child
> > knows after the first visit to the grocery store?
> But the cute thing (in my perhaps naive lobianity)
> here is that you 
> don't need more than the trivialities every child
> knows after the first 
> visit to the grocery store, to understand that, once
> we assume comp, 
> Numbers protects the free mind against a *vast*
> class of reductionism.
> I should perhaps not insist on that because,
> sometimes I ask myself, 
> humanity could be not mature enough, but there are
> many reason to 
> believe that eventually all universal machines
> sufficiently correct to 
> survive will converge toward a state of being
> universal dissident, a 
> typical allergy to authoritative arguments.
> > As long as we cannot identify what a 'number' is,
> it does not 
> > contribute to
> > an understanding of reason.
> Could we identify what a human is?
> > What is '3' without monitoring something?
> With the Fi I tried to explain how far can numbers
> can monitors 
> numbers, including partially themselves.
> Also,  I would get the feeling of lying to myself if
> I was not 
> acknowledging that I understand better the number 3
> than an electron or 
> a theory about electrons.
> > (This is not a personal attack on you or YOUR
> >theory, it is a common belief
> > and I question its usability -  not by opposing,
> just curious to find a way
> > to accept it and experience the happiness of the
> mathematicians).
> Do you know the proof that the square root of 2 is
> irrational. It is an 
> impossibility theorem. Godel's incompletness and
> Turing's 
> insolubilities are very deep impossibility theorem
> concerning machine, 
> and us (assuming comp). The happiness of the
> mathematician is of many 
> type: barock, romantic, jazz, mystery-inspired,
> esthetic ....
> > As you can see, I have no idea about number
> theory. Whenever I tried 
> > to read
> > into it, I found myself  (the text) inside the
> >mindset which I wanted to
> > approach from the outside. Nobody offered so far a
> >way to "get in" if you are "outside" of it
> I can offer my help, but I don't want to insist.
> > It is a magic and I do not like magic.
> I like true magic. I hate magic+ marmelade.
> > Next time when I ask "how can you describe the
> taste of vanilla by
> > manipulating ordinary numbers"?  TRY IT.
> You asked me more difficult problems in the past,
> John.
> *assuming comp*, there is an easy answer.  Go to
> Numberplatonia, use 
> Goedel's technic to write a little program with the
> instruction "help 
> yourself". Pray each day your little program develop
> itself convenably, 
> perhaps with the help of the heaven.  When
> sufficiently developed, 
> maybe after billions of years, invite e to the next
> grocery and buy er 
> a vanilla candy, and then ask er. E will give you
> the best description 
> you can ever hope of a taste of vanilla,
> corresponding to a billion 
> years of ordinary number manipulations and you can
> look at them if you 
> have print the execution of the program.
> If comp is true, nobody will know for sure which
> numbers are 
> responsible for the vanilla qualia, although
> empirical theories will 
> progress up to the point of buying "qualia".
> Successes there will be 
> serendipitous, and unproved scientifically, but most
> of us will not 
> care ... only for bugs ... and protection of privacy
> (an explosively 
> daunting task of the future which will be made
> tractable through 
> quantum information practice I think).
> Bruno

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