Le 10-sept.-07, à 21:03, John Mikes a écrit :

> Dear Bruno, i failed to acknowledge your kind reply - and others 
> joining in - for the past month, not because I have been tied up with 
> 'other' WEB lists, but because I realized that i have nothing to say 
> "in kind" of the language you use.

No problem. But note that you can ask about language question in case 
of trouble.

> Not only are the terms unfamiliar (I have to think hard to put them 
> into 'meaning' (proper or not), but the underlying and firmly supposed 
> to 'known' math-phys theories are vague at best (some, others 
> unknown). So are the words used lately.

Don't hesitate, in case you have the time to tell us which one. You 
could be surprise how simple things are, and why sometimes things seems 
complex but are not (alas, sometimes the contrary is true too; they are 
  manay things which seems obvious, but are not, like Church's thesis to 
name just one important example).

> So I did not want to bore you with my uneducated remarks.

The "average lobian machine" is even less educate than you. And the 
understanding of what I'm trying to do is 50% based on the fact that 
lobian machine can already understand it, even discover it.

> This discussion penetrated the technical (?) level of the few adepts 
> and alas I am not part of it.

You are, imo (judging from you posts). But it asks for work, and I can 
understand it is hard to find the time and sometimes even just the 
necessary serene atmosphere for thinking ...

> In the meantime Marc G published his tabels restricting all that can 
> be known (his ontology?) into the domains he presently knows. That 
> also threw me out from a desire to participate:
>  I start from our ignorance and consider whatever we think we know as 
> our increasing epistemy.

A good path. Note that eventually we have to come back to ignorance. 
Bohr said something similar to "the more you dig on the quantum the 
less you understand".  With comp, this is also correct, but in this 
case you can at least understand why it is necessarily so. The more you 
dig on comp, the less you understand, but at least you can understand 
why. Eventually lobian ignorance appears as something powerful and 
creative. Also, that digging is a major step to "more freedom", but 
also, I think, to more humanity (because of its "less certainty" 
consequences; many inhuman aspects of humanity come from people having 
certainties about humans.

> I keep lurking and when my mouse starts squeaking in common sense, I 
> will put in a post.
> With appreciation for your (plural) advanced knowledge

Thanks. Take it easy. What I propose to explain to David is the minimal 
background in 19th century mathematics which has led to Church's 
thesis, which is really somehow the "Schroedinger equation" of comp. 
Church thesis makes the universal machine really "universal", and it 
makes the universal dovetailer really universally dovetailing.

If you stick literally to the idea of complaining each time you miss a 
technical world, then you will eventually understand what I am trying 
to prove. There is not so much difficulties (beside newness or 
novelty). I propose a thought experiment (UDA) which shows why IF we 
are (digital) machine then the laws of physics have to be justified 
from the many possible relations existing between numbers/machines, and 
then I show how to put this into practice by interviewing some 
Universal Machine (the one I call lobian, which are just a slight 
extension of what a universal machine is).

The real bomb is just the discovery/apparition of those universal 
machines last century. They are the "heroes" of our time, not because 
they are powerful, but because they indicate a path which can help a 
lot to realize our own abyssal ignorance. And adding knowledge about 
those beasts can only makes our (creative) ignorance even bigger.

John, you don't have to justify your silence, but if that silence is 
based on vocabulary questions, please just dare to ask. As a teacher I 
have eventually understood that everybody can understand math, but not 
everybody can be motivated. Motivations are personal. Now, sometimes 
people are motivated, but they can be discouraged for bad reasons, like 
the feeling something is not for them, when they have actually just 
miss a definition. In *that* case I can help (and I am interested 
personally to help). The questions addressed in this list *are* 
complex; the math is needed to simplify things, not making them more 
complex ...




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 

Reply via email to