Le 25-avr.-07, à 13:06, Russell Standish a écrit :
> > I enjoyed the allegory used here. An amusing and also intriguing post! > > BTW, "garderobe" is "wardrobe" in English, but the French word is so > much more apt. Thanks. John Mikes wrote: > Dear Bruno: > je suis emu aux larmes. You really took your time and made it > enjoyable. > The first that came to my dirty mind was that males are heterosexual > additions of any couple, females of any homosexual combination. > Products of heterosexuals are female, of homosexuals the same gender > as multiplied. > > I have to re-read your (confessedly long) essay on numbers again, > because at Jacobi I started to sweep through paragraphs and at > Einstein my eyes got glassy. > I have to find the punctum saliens where you jumped from number-topic > into the non-number world. > > I learned about Lagrange, Euler, in 1940-42, then again for Ph.D. in > 1947 then forgot them and the others before many of the esteemed > list-members were born. > > So allow me to reflect later and thanks again You are welcome. Take your time. What I was saying, is that I can understand your skepticism in front of "numberism". I have tried to illustrate that such fear are grounded. The relation between numbers are so deep that it is not excluded that a physical TOE could be extracted directly from number theory. But the advantage of extracting physics from the theology, i.e. from the interview of the universal machine, is that we get (thanks to Godel, Lob, Solovay), not only the physics (quanta), but also the qualia, the persons, the mind, etc. All the things usually put under the rug or abandon to the first local authority. So you see thare are numbers and numbers. It is possible to extract physics without ever leaving the third person realm, but that would lead to reductionnism. Thanks to Godel & Co., by interviewing directly the universal machine, we can extract physics, and "metaphysics", if you want. Actually it is a whole "plotinian-like" theology which is proposed by the self-observing chatty universal machine. As you can guess, the JACOBI post has been written little bit by little bit at home. I could do the same for the interview of the machine, because at work I am struggling with times and usual job oddities. Bruno PS Mark, my comment on Tegmark's diagram will be include in the explanation of what is the interview of the L. Machine as promised to John. Thanks for your patience. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
