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' , like
(absolute?) probability - is there such a thing as probability, the figment that if it happend x times it WILL happen the (X+one)th time as well? combined with 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 time-concept in it and the 'observer' must be conscious (btw: identifying 'conscious') number (in the broader sense, yet applied as real integers) (Btw: are the 'non-Arabic' numbers also numbers? the figments of evolutionary languages alp[habetical or not? Is zero a number? Was not in "Platonia" - a millennium before its invention(?!) The 'extensions' of machine into (loebian etc.) [non?]-machine, like comp into the nondigital and mixing our mental interpretations with what has been interpreted (unknowable). 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 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---