Stathis, Bruno,

This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a way to
'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without the
'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform?
There are sacrosanct 'words' used without explaining them (over and over
again?, BUT
at least once for the benefit of that newcomer 'alien' who comes from
another vista' ,

(absolute?) probability - is there such a thing as probability, the figment
   if it happend x times it WILL happen the (X+one)th time as well? combined
   the statistical hoax of counting from select members in a limited group
the version
  'A' models  and assuming its 'probability'?

observer moment (observer, for that matter), whether the moment is a
  in it and the 'observer' must be conscious (btw: identifying 'conscious')

number (in the broader sense, yet applied as real integers) (Btw: are the
  numbers also numbers? the figments of evolutionary languages alp[habetical
or not?
  Is zero a number? Was not in "Platonia" - a millennium before its

The 'extensions' of machine into (loebian etc.) [non?]-machine, like comp
into the nondigital
  and mixing our mental interpretations with what has been interpreted

Just some picked examples promoting a not-so-technical glossary for the rest
of the world

John M

On 2/3/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Bruno Marchal writes:
> > What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is that comp
> > eludes the "material implementation" problem, given that we take all
> > abstract possible relationship between those objects, and they are all
> > well defined as purely number theoretical relations. Note that this is
> > something I have tried to explain to Jacques Mallah sometimes ago, but
> > without much success. This does not make much sense in ASSA approaches,
> > but, like George Levy I think, I don't believe in absolute probability
> > of being me, or of living my current "observer moment". Such a
> > probability can be given the value one (said George) but it is close of
> > saying that the universe is here, which tells us nothing, really. It is
> > like answering "who are you?" by I am me".
> I'm satisfied with this summary. The physical implementation problem is
> not
> a problem when considering abstract machines.
> Stathis Papaioannou

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