Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:

> 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present.

Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little
more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just
how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important whether we
conceive it as Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don't time, or does it work in
'block' time? This may be a maths vs. 'primitive' EC issue. Anyway, if
NYSINYD, what is the status of the 'thens'? That is, if nothing but a
wafer-thin 'now' is actual, how does this effect process-structure at
the macro-level, which we encounter as Vast ensembles of events? Does
reality work as just the flimsiest meniscus? This is presumably not a
problem in a block version.

Also, what about STR with respect to 'now' and the present?

But perhaps I'm jumping the gun.

David

> =============================================
> STEP 5:  The rolling proof
>
> NOTES:
> 1) There is only 1 proof in EC. (Symbolically it has been designated U(.)
> above)
> 2) It consists of 1 collection of basic EC primitives (axioms)
> 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present.
> 4) The documentation of all the outpouring prior states (configuration of
> the entire set of axioms) is what would be regarded as a standard proof -
> A theorem evolving under the guiding hand of the mathematician. It's just
> that there is 1 mathematician per axiom in EC.
> 5) In effect, all that every happens in EC is rearrangement of axioms into
> a new configuration, which then becomes a new configuration of axioms.
> 6) The 'theorem' proof never ends.
> 7) This process, when viewed from the perspective of being part of EC
> looks like time. Local regularity in the state transition processes would
> mean that local representations of behaviour could have a t parameter in
> them.
> 8) Each fluctuation can be regarded as a 'mathematician'. This makes EC a
> single gigantic parallel theorem proving exercise where at each 'state',
> each mathematician co--operates with a local subset of other
> mathematicians and where possible they merge their work and then form a
> 'team' which then works with other local mathematicians.
> 7) The local options for a mathematician are totally state dependent i.e.
> depending in what other mathematicians (or teams of merged mathematicians)
> are available to merge with.
> 8) The rules for cooperation between mathematicians will look like the 2nd
> law of thermodynamics from within EC. Those rules will emerge later.
> ===============================================
>
> Well I hope they will!.....
>
> NEXT: some of the rules. Remember we are headed towards analysing the
> nature of the structure of the EC proof and at the mechanism of 1-person.
> In terms of EC, if local structure in EC is a part of the single EC proof,
> then it is a 'sub-proof' in EC. At the outermost structural levels the
> proof literally is 'matter'. The 1-person is a virtual-proof performed by
> matter. Virtual matter. It's done under the same rules. Nothing special.
> Everything is the same in EC. We can then look at what COMP would do to
> it.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> colin hales


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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