----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:34 AM
  Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
  (Brent's question skipped)...
  BM:
  Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain 
  where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery.
  It makes science open. Forever.

  But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an 
  embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles 
  come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt 
  (cf G/G*).
  Bruno
  A question in the 1st par: (Not   the "assuming" or not part): it is the 
nature of that particular type 'science' prohibiting to disclose the origin of 
ANY numbers. 
  *
  As evolutionary complexity (and I emphasize this 'comp') goes, the hominid 
compared things, fingers, etc. and found 2 (two) hands/feet. Paralle to its 
mental development it realized 5 fingers on each. Compared to children in the 
cave and as the veins in his neck widened (through increasing holes in the 
skull etc.) for more blood into the developing neuronal brain, named the 
'count', "added" both hands if there were many kids and so on. I skip the 
ramifications, counting was developed with 'numbers named' and it is only a 
quanti developmental difference to arrive at a Hilbert space, or CQD. The 
growing neural complexity allowed the coordination of hand-muscles to make the 
hand-ax a projectile, something chimps have not yet achieved. It went in 
quantitative (no qualitative emergence and no random invention) steps to the 
spacerocket application.
  Then, gradually, the human mind became capable of more complexity - to 
explain natural observation at the level of the time in a quantised 
(physicalistic) fashion.
  *
  In another science-view, if we look at the processes as in a reductionist 
model separation, the numbers may appear as God, creating the universe. 
Unexplainably.
  It is another viewpoint of another form of 'science'.  
  The above is not my obsession, I see it as free thinking.
  *
  Bruno, I looked at your 'knots' (my head still spins from them) and agree to 
their topological - math view, no need of a material input. Which one was 
Alexander's? 
  Best wishes

  John M


  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


  


  -- 
  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 
11:27 AM


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

Reply via email to