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