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

John


--- 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
> 
> 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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to