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.


> =============================================
> STEP 5:  The rolling proof
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to