Thanks, Bruno, lots of remarkable notions in your remarks (I mean: I can write remarks to them 0 sorry for the pun). Let me interject in Italics below. John

## Advertising

On 2/5/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi John, > > > Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:20, John Mikes a écrit : > > > 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? > > > I am not sure. Avoiding technical acceptance of a theoretical platform > can be done for presenting result, not really for discussing about > them. Before discussing, I want to 'understand' - definitely without first 'accepting' the platform I may discuss. One has to be able to express ideas for people who do not know them in advance. > 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? > > > This is inductive inference, not probability. There are probability-discussions going on on 2 lists. aLL FALL into your term. Do you have an example for probability (as pointed out from a muiltitude of possible occurrences)? > combined with > > the statistical hoax of counting from select members in a limited > > group the version > > 'A' models and assuming its 'probability'? > > > That is why to use probability and/or any uncertainty measure we have > to be clear about the axioms we are willing to admit, at least for the > sake of some argument. I do not accept 'axioms', they are postulated to make a theoretical position feasible. I will come back to this at your 'numbers'. > > > observer moment (observer, for that matter), whether the moment is a > > time-concept > > in it and the 'observer' must be conscious (btw: identifying > > 'conscious') > > > The expression "observer moment" has originated with Nick Bostrom, in > context similar to the doomsday argument. I would call them "first > person observer moment". I will try to explain how to translate them in > comp. Translate it please first into plain English. Without those symbols which may be looked up in half an hour just to find 8 other ones in the explanation which then can be looked up to find 5-6 further ones in each and so on. this is the reason for my FIRST par question. > > > 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(?!) > > > Number, by default are the so called "natural number": 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, > ... > They correspond to the number of strokes in the following sequence of > sets: > { }, { I }, { II }, { III }, { IIII }, { IIIII }, { IIIIII }, { > IIIIIII }, { IIIIIIII }, etc. Does that mean that you cannot distinguish whether 3, 30, 101010, 120, 1002, etcetera, ALL SYMBOLISED BY {III} ???? (plus the unmarked zeroes) (You did not include the hiatus and position, as number, as I see). Which would nicely fit into the "Number=God" statement, as infinite variations of infinite many meanings.. Zero is a number by definition. But this is just a question of > definition. For the Greeks number begins with three. Like the adjective > "numerous" still rarely applies when only two things are referred too. Like Teen(ager) starts at 13. Early development counted to 5, (fingers?) above that it was "many". In Russian there is a singular and a dual case, then a 'small plural' for 3,4,5, then comes the big plural 6-10 in every decimal size repeatedly. Ancient Hungarian etc. music was pentatonal. Now we are decimalic (for practical reasons, except for some backward countries, e.g. USA) - our toddler computers are binary. So I presume (induction-wise) that there will be developed other number-systems as well in the future, unless we accept humbly to be omniscient and sit at the top of the epistemic enrichment. > > > The 'extensions' of machine into (loebian etc.) [non?]-machine, like > > comp into the nondigital > > > > ? comp does not go out of the digital, except from a first person point > of view (but that is an hard technical point, to be sure). Do you deny the analogue computing? or(!!) transcribe the participants of any analogy into numbers? I called above the digital computing "toddler". In "english" I would define a "universal (digital) machine", by a > digital machine potentially capable of emulating (simulating perfectly) > any other digital machine from a description of it. Today's computers > and interpreters are typical example of such "hard" and soft > (respectively) universal machines. Now a universal digital machine is > lobian when she "knows" that she is universal. Defining "knows" has to > be a bit technical. This is not at all an official definition. Look at > my SANE04 paper for a more offical definition. It is related to a sort > of placebo phenomenon. If we continue this conversation there will be > plenty of time to make this clear. But you are right to ask for > definition, or for more explanations. Thanks > and mixing our mental interpretations with what has been > > interpreted (unknowable). > > > Don't hesitate to come back on this? Out of context I could say to much > things and then have to repeat it. > > > > > > > > Just some picked examples promoting a not-so-technical glossary for > > the rest of the world > > > Make a list, and send it. So we can think about. Not all > conversation-threads ask for the same level of precision. I like the idea of making a list just cannot promise how long it takes. Bruno John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---