Here is my second reflection to this post of Bruno. The first I wrote IN PRIVATE, deleting every hint to the list-address, only to Bruno's private e-mail, and within 20 minutes it was published on list. Is there a way how the list does not kidnap private communication? This 2nd part refers to Bruno's remark to what I posted to Marc G - below. I will interject after Bruno's text addressed to my post.
John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:58 AM Subject: Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia Le 29-sept.-06, à 02:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : [+ comment to John below] (I truncated the Marc-Bruno discussion) >> Bruno >(Mark, let me take your quoting of John Mikes as an opportunity to repeat a key point ). > >> We may concentrate on the part humanly comprehensible, but in the >> wholistic view we cannot make it a substantial part of the existence. > >> John M > John, I have already said this, but it is short and important so let me repeat: let us concentrate on machine or number comprehensibility, instead of humans' one. Assuming comp, this is substantially larger than human's comprehensibility, and still not trivial thanks to incompleteness. Also, the more I walk in number theory, the harder it is for me to imagine a better wholistic view of a reality where anything is connected to anything in a lot of surprising and unexpected ways. And incompleteness protects numbers against any totalitarian theory pretending to unify the truth about them. Numbers can "see" their limitations, they can find holes in their views, and they can see better through those holes. Numbers are saying you are right, but you seem not to listen, due to your human prejudice against them. I let you chose if that is sad or comical. Bruno -------------------- JM: Whatever we 'concentrate on' for comprehensibility, is *our* way of doing. Within our HUMAN comprehension. We cannot concentrate on things we cannot comprehend. Don't even KNOW such things. We may assume that "there may be incomprehensible other features' inaccessible to our human mind, but *so* they are. So we may say that numbers (??) or comp CAN comprehend more than we do, but nothing can be said about that 'more' in human discours. We cannot even phantasize about 'those' items. What I referred to is that we cannot detail such unknowables (= the incomprehensibles) into our image-composition of the existence. How do you know that (those?) numbers HAVE limitations to see? My "human prejudice" is the recognition of my limitations. If you include into your discours the features comprehensible for the numbers or comp (beyond the human one) you must reduce the number- or comp comprehensibility to a human level to talk about it. Like: To turn infinite into very much/big. Domesticate the wild. I find it neither sad nor comical. I find it incomprehensible. John M http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 09/27/06 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
