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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[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)
>(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
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.
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at