Dear Bruno,
I read with joy your long and detailed 'teaching' reply (Hungarian slogan:
like a mother to her imbecil child) and understood a lot (or so I think).
I am not entusiastic about a sign-language (gesticulated or written) instead
of words, because I did not familiarize myself into its 'underwstanding'

About your warning (Uri Geller's fork): I abhor 'righteous' conclusions
based on actual half-information and always leave open a slot for things to
be learned (discovered) later.
In my 7+ decades of watching the world around me (7 in science) I saw
"changes" that made me a "~" for firm conclusions. I am not for including
the unknowable, but nobody taught about DNA when I first learned
biochemical compounds or irreversible thermodynamics when I first learned
Carnot.-  And the Moon was for the poets. Computer was a slide-rule. We had
a phone ("please, Mam, connect me to Mr Brown") and I had a radio in 1927 -
it spoke(!) through an earphone 2 hours a day.Hallo Radio Budapest,
 Hence my belief in further surprises.I experienced all kinds of belief
systems changing around me, in science, art, politics, economy, so the
latest is not so impressive either.

Thanks again for your kind explanations - and am ready for Wi Fi.


On 1/19/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear John,
> Le 17-janv.-07, ŕ 18:11, John M a écrit :
> > Dear Bruno,
> > may I ask you to spell out your "B" and "D"?
> > in your:
> > >Let D = the proposition "God exists", "~" = NOT, B = believes.<
> > Where I think I cannot substitute your "~" for the "=NOT" - or, if
> > the entire line is meaning ONE idea,that "B" believes both the
> > affirmative and the negatory.
> > Also: the difference between ~BD and ~B~D?
> In this paragraph you should interpret B by "believes" or by "the
> subject believes". And D is an abbreviation of "God exists" (careful!
> in other context D is an abbreviation of "~B~", that is "the subject
> does not believe in the negation of ".
> Example: B(it rains) = the subject believes it rains.
>     BD = the subject believes that God exists.
> the tilde symbol  ~    represents the classical negation. A logician
> will write    ~(it rains)     for saying that it does not rain. So we
> recover the four modal negation cases already known by Aristotle (as
> the aristotelian square):
> BD = the subject believes that God exists
> B(~D) = the subject believes that God does not exist
> ~BD = the subject does not believe that God exists
> ~B~D = the subject does not believe that God does not exist.
> We have:
> BD is true for the so-called "believer" (in God)
> B(~D) is true for the atheist (he is a believer: he believes that God
> does not exist)
> ~BD is true for a (consistent) atheist or for an agnostic
> ~B~D is true for a (consistent) believer or for an agnostic.
> To characterize an agnostic, you have to say that both ~BD and ~B~D are
> true for him. He does neither believe in God, nor in the inexistence of
> God.
> If you replace God by Santa-Klaus, or by "Primary matter" you get the
> corresponding notion of believer, atheist, agnostic relatively to Santa
> Klaus existence or Matter existence ...
> >
> > I have the feeling that we both are on the same ground in our
> > nonexistent beliefs and I expressed that also as being an agnostic,
> > rather than the atheist (who needs a god-concept (incl. matter, for
> > that matter) to DENY.)
> We agree on this, and I think we even agree that we agree on this :)
> >  It is contrary to the German common usage of "gottlos"(same in my
> > language) - but we try to step further than the conventional common
> > historically used vocabulary.
> Yes.
> > Br:
> > >I do neither believe in the inexistence of God, nor in the
> > >inexistence of Matter. I wait for more data.<
> > I took a more straightforward stance when a 'believer' challenged me
> > to prove: there is NO god, I said I can disprove only if he proved the
> > existence.
> This is the quasi-definitive proof that you are a lobian machine ... in
> case, you accept to interpret arithmetically Plotinus' ONE by "truth".
> Lobian machine can disprove any attempt to define truth ...   (this is
> mainly a consequence of Tarski theorem)
> >
> > Another (redface) ignorance of mine: it seems that your Wi and Fi
> > references appeared in the parts more technical than I could
> > consciously absorb, so I am at a loss.
> It is not very difficult. According to Norman Samish it looks too much
> technical for the list, but I am not sure. In general those who have
> some problem with the technical stuff have just some lack of elementary
> "modern math". I will have to come back on the Wi and the Fi, if people
> are interested in the real stuff ....
> > Computable must mean more than "Turing emulable" (R.Rosen) since the
> > unrestricted totality is not available in toto for this later concept.
> "total computable" means more than "turing emulable" (partially
> computable).  Let us not enter in the technics right now, but keep
> insisting :-)
> > Br asked:
> > >You seem quite sure about that. How do you know? >Why couldn'it be
> > that *you* find this "limited" due to your >own prejudice about
> > numbers and machines? <
> > I was impregnated by some commi dialectic materialism over 2 decades
> > and found a perspective of things developing gradually reasonable. AI
> > emulates (some) human mental characteristics and I don't believe that
> > this process has been completed.
> Of course, but I am a theoretician interested in guessing where
> "matter" and "mind" comes from. Also I have theoretical reasons to
> believe that AI will never proVably succeed. Comp can be used to
> predict that even some of the AI products will never believe in AI.
> Some machine will be anticomputationalist.
> >  I see additional possibilities to extend into, especially in mental
> > events we have not yet discovered.
> Hmmm... Careful with this type of argument. It is like saying that I
> don't believe in quantum mechanics because it does not explain how Uri
> Geller can change the shape of a fork without touching it. I mean few
> theories can explain things not yet discovered (even theoretically).
> > This 'feeling' is not due to my - as you say - prejudice about numbers
> > and machines.
> > I could not spell out such 'prejudice', not in the least because ofmy
> > above argument in agnosticism: I did not get so far a firm support for
> > the 'numbers' being the foundation of everything, so I cannot argue
> > against such unproven idea (neither to believe).
> > *
> > Lobian machine: I follow a deterministic view: everything that happens
> > is entailed by originating processes (whether we know them or not), so
> > a 'mechanism' can be thought of (machine). I accept your (Bruno)
> > teaching about Loeb's original description (I tried to read 'him', but
> > it was too 'technical) so I feel free to call myself a 'loebian
> > machine' truthfully. Especially since it is the expression used by
> > Bruno et al. on this list.
> > Consistent I am in MY common sense (which may be fallse).
> Again, you talk like a lobian entity!
> What I like with lobian machines (or entities) is exactly this: they
> arise from the attempt, made by mathematicians, to build the Leibnizian
> universal reasoning machine capable of answering all questions in
> mathematics.
> But now, when we build anything being close to prove the most
> elementary truth about numbers, such machine, when asked if they will
> ever say some stupidity, instead of saying arrogantly "no, I never say
> stupidities", say exactly the contrary: they say ``either I will say a
> stupidity, or I might say a stupidity".  (For the modalist: "B(0 = 1)
> or DB(0 = 1)"; this is a version of the second incompleteness theorem).
> Here D = ~B~
> And all their (nameable) consistent extensions are like that !!!!!!!!
> .... !!!!!!!
> I have already shown that the price of being an universal machine is
> the possibility to "die/dream/crash/assert-stupidities...".
> A lobian machine, roughly speaking is a universal machine having the
> very basic introspective ability to prove this about herself.
> > *
> > About the "underlying physical reality"? it became physical only by
> > our interpretation into matter-based model-view. Reality may be
> > underlying - I know nothing about that - but we DO base our figments
> > on something. Then we build up aworld 'physical'
> OK.
> > (I really do not want to tease you: "or mathematical - numbers based).
> No problem,
> Regards,
> Bruno

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