Bruno, you ARE a teacher (a good and passionate one) but your imagination is
insufficient. You cannot imagine how much I don't know.  pick up 'words' and
'phrases' and apply common sense to them with a certain authoritative flair,
so  those who understand the topic can think that I am talking sense. As I
already confessed: I never studied logics and cannot 'read' the signs (nor
can I 'decipher' those equational formats) you all apply in otherwise human
sentences. They look like math to me.
And i still did not get an acceptable explanation why 'numbers' are the
basics of everything (and WHAT they may be).  Those numbers applied in
mathematical formal language are definitely products of the human mind, as
David Bohm so clearly stated. I know: you represent the opposite way: not
numbers from thinking, but existence, ith all pertinent to it FROM numbers,
which I reject just as the 'personalized creator'  in an any other form.
I also keep away from ANY thought experiences, they are products of OUR
state of the mind at the time they are 'invented'.  In deducing some
explanations from 'phenomena' we think we experienced (depends upon the
actual level of our observational and explanatory cpacity)  I always put an
uncertainty in it, because the Flat Earth did not prove true later, either.
(Now geocentrism is true again, after Einstein, because it is quite
arbitrary that we can decide as a (relative) center for all others, no
matter how complicated the math would be...).
I am in subconscious trouble with the machine, which is differently
identified by Robert Rosen and I find a lot acceptable in his ideas.
 God and the angels are also hard: I do not go for assumption-based
consequences (not true: everything is such), in fairytales of non-logical
I go with Colin's "mini solipsism" as I call it, the world is what we make
of it for ourselves. I use my own logic, it served me well for many decades,
and my 'narrative' about the world and its installation is such (and only
such) as it entertains me and my logic. Not the conventional sciences.
After 5 decades of successful polymer chemistry (38 patents, 3 continent
consulting) I do not accept the existence of atoms and molecules, they are
'math' based explanatory sweat-products of the past 2-300 years for
observations mostly misunderstood. Natural law is a statistical mistake by
counting matching observations(?) within a selected 'model' (cut-off domain)
of vision. Use a wider 'model' and different 'laws' will appear.
If you have some empty Google time, I wrote a 'worldview'-like (now
obsolete) piece on the KARL JASPERS FORUM (TA-62MIK) on networks of networks
in 2003.
And one thing: I am an anti-teacher, I don't want to persuade anybody to
accept MY views. I offer them for consideration - period.
Sorry for the longwinded chit-chat.


On 9/11/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 ...
> Best,
> Bruno
> >

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