You play loose with 'context': not observed with the baby's diapers,
but observed with K and S - (what I didnot specify at all, in the
contrary: I spoke about (any) symbol in the sentence what fou failed
to misunderstand rightly. )
You seem to comfortably refer to 'matter' (vs numbers) while we are
not on 'physical' basis.
(I still cannot fathom how the originating 'numbers' (integers) have
the consciousness and will to 'generate' the world. I did not learn
that, all I learned was: they are tools "I" can manipulate.
(Of course I am no mathematician and 'learned' mostly applied math).
One cow has 4 legs, eo ipso 4 cows have 16. It does not solve Hal's
Your 'numbers' religion still requires a 'numbers God' - or did they
bootstrap themselves? This view does not represent a different one to
any other what people believe in. I confess freely in my narrative
that "...and further BACK we know nothing, I 'imagine' a behavior and
take it from there to arrive at the situation we think we see today -
using (MY) common sense.
I have to see something 'better' than what I use to accept it - instead.
I am glad you replied BEFORE your coffe, So I could (more or less) follow it.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 06-févr.-08, à 23:56, John Mikes a écrit :
> > Bruno, here is my "out of order and off topic" remark.
> > ----------------------------
> > We are here in theoretical theorizing by theory-laden theoretic ways.
> > It is ALL the product of a mental exercise. Even a Loebian kick in
> > the ass can be a theoretical halucination.
> I could agree. But then *all* theories are hallucinations, all right?
> Even the baby's theories according to which they have a mother is a
> theoretical hallucination, most probably emerging from a conversation
> between billions of connected speculative amoeba/neurons betting on
> some personal reality ...
> > You wrote:
> > "... - ...
> > But does 'M" exist? ,,, - ..."
> > (Never mind in what context. )
> > "exist" is a hard word.
> I am not so sure. I mean that in some context the question is clearcut
> and meaningful (independently of the complexity of solving it).
> In the current context K and S exists, by definition, and all their
> descendants (their combinations) exist, by definition too. Now they
> have all a rather well-defined behavior due to the behavior of K and S,
> and the question of the existence of M (defined by its duplicator
> behavior) is becoming a pure engineering problem. Ask me examples if
> this is not clear.
> > Contemplating in a generalized way, I would say:
> > "Everything (not in Hal's sense) exists what we THINK of, if not
> > otherwise: in our ideas.
> Yes sure. Actually K is so perverse (in the eyes of some logicians,
> like Church) that some wants to say that K does not make sense, and
> Curry (one of the (re)discover of K) defended the existence of K as an
> idea of thought. Yes sure: eliminating something is a widespread idea.
> > Does 'K' or 'S' have a better than mental existential veracity?
> I would suggest you to take a look at my paper "Theoretical computer
> Science and the natural laws". In that paper I sum up (a bit roughly)
> the Physics of Newton by "K does not exists (in nature)", and I sum up
> the Physics of Einstein-Podolski-Rosen-Everett-Deutsch-Zurek-Wooters,
> by "S does not exist". Indeed K eliminate information (like a
> "classical black hole") and S duplicates arbitrary informations (a
> problem in QM).
> So yes K and S are on the mind side, not on the matter side. But this
> is not needed in the present context, where I introduced S and K just
> as an example of programming language (typically already on the mind
> > We can
> > think of a symbol that it does or does not exist, it does not change
> > that it DOES indeed exist in our mental domain.
> I don't understand that sentence. (don't confuse the symbol K with the
> primitive instruction K defined by Kxy = x, it is the left- projection
> or the right elimination: it send (x, y) on x (eliminating y).
> > Do you have a better 'domain' (e.g. a physical existence)? I doubt.
> > In our 1st person world it would not make sense.
> Physical existence is, by UDA, at best a first person (plural)
> construct. I recall you that in "my theory" (my favorite hallucination
> which I try to share with you) numbers and combinators and alike exists
> before anything material. Matter emerges as a relative border of the
> machines/numbers ignorance. I do have a better 'domain': numbers
> (integers). All the rest are number's hallucinations or first person
> perspectives. But some hallucination can last lawfully, and the
> question is why. With comp, the question can be made 100% math, and
> that makes comp testable.
> And if you don't like numbers, you could take directly combinators
> instead (their are just less known for contingent reason like we have
> > -----------------------
> > Excuse my rambling and please, consider it 'entertainment' rather than
> > discussion-post.
> Your rambling could help me to make things clearer perhaps, but ok, the
> deepest purpose here is fun and entertainment. Thanks for your
> attention. Now I will hallucinate a bit on a cup of coffee ...,
(prior art erased)
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