On 02 Dec 2008, at 00:16, Kim Jones wrote:

>
>
> On 02/12/2008, at 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Kim,
>>
>>
>> On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi -
>>> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no
>>> substratum of primitive physical materiality?
>>>
>>> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te
>>> serais infiniment reconnaisant
>>
>>
>>
>> To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho  
>> or
>> bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding.
>
>
> OK - accepted; I get this from mathematicians and physicists all the
> time - and I have quite a few as friends. Nevertheless, if there was
> one human on the planet who could do it, or at the very best make a
> heroic attempt at it, I reckon YOU'RE THE ONE!!!!!
>
> Court jesters like me cannot understand mathematics, but we understand
> the 'realities' described by mathematics through a kind of sixth
> sense. We are also very good judges of character. Tu peux te sauver,
> mais tu ne peux pas m'eschapper!!!



Damned!




>
>
>
>>
>> What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it.
>
>
>
> I LOVE the Mandelbrot set. I intuitively feel that reality is fractal.
> I do not know how I 'know' this. Please explain to me how I can know
> something without really knowing something



It is like babies. They are born with the most sophisticated  
"universal computing machine" (their brain). yet they learn to use  
them even without instruction manual. Well, like kids with computer  
nowadays.
You are so rich because you are a product of a very long and deep  
computation probably. At least.





>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Also, I don't want to bore the list too much,
>
>
> I don't think all these 'brains the size of a planet' are being bored
> by a different way of looking at the same data for once. Hopefully
> they welcome it.



Perhaps they could appreciate a second pass (or a third, or a  
fourth, ...). Hmmm....




>
>
>
>
>
>> and there are already
>> many posts, so I will go extremely slowly.
>
>
> Yes, there are many monks hunched over their manuscripts in cloisters
> racking their brains by candle-light, trying to see in the data what
> they have long ago decided is already there.....


That happens.



>
>
>
>>
>>
>> You may be disappointed.
>
>
> That nobody can explain reality without using mathematics?


No. You could be disappointed how things are simple. Just unusual.




> But reality
> already IS - I don't see algebra floating around inside my living
> room!! Maybe the universe is most ACCURATELY described in the
> (devil's) details using the numbers but what about SIMPLIFYING it all
> for once?
>
> Surely a FIVE YEAR OLD can sit at this table and appreciate some of
> this stuff?


Sure, young people in general understand all this much more easily  
than older one. Like always. Too bad they pass exams with the old one.




> Maybe a five year old can actually PUT something on the
> table to be considered because the brains-the-size-of-a-planet have
> forgotten that simplicity is a much more effective force for good than
> complexity.


That's the point. Especially the "matrix" generation. have you seen  
the better "thirteen floor", made from the novel by Daniel Galouye?
Have you seen the movie "The prestige". It is better than my work you  
know.




>
>
> There is much FOGWEED growing on this list. Maybe reality is too
> simple to understand - as opposed to too complex. Let's get into a bit
> of jardinage!!!


Yes it is simple indeed. Probably not *that* simple. There are many  
traps.


>
>
>
>
>
>> In general mystic-open people like the
>> conclusion,
>
>
>
> Well - I'm not into mystery, that's for sure.

You reassure me. You will not be too much disappointed then. In fact  
only one (big) mystery will remain, but we will understand why.



> I don't trust people who
> perpetuate mysteries. They are covering something up!!! I still expect
> the conclusion to follow from the reasoning,


And from the hypotheses. That is wise.



> but I happen to believe
> that once you have cogitated on the mathematics, the output CAN be
> described in plain English (or French)


Sure. My shorter description in the Soccer language: Plato 1 ---  
Aristotle 0.
(And I am not saying it is the end of the match!).




>
>
> Why should it be that anybody devoid of a PhD in higher mathematics
> and logic and computer science should be locked out of this
> discussion? As I said to Russell recently, "I worship at the feet of
> anybody who can understand this (mathematical) stuff"
>
> BUT
>
> I happen to believe (in my humble foolishness) that you can still
> communicate these (really quite) momentous ideas in a way that the
> 99.9999999% of humanity who don't inhabit universities for most of
> their lives can understand


Especially today. despite many promising discourses on "inter- 
disciplinary research", the truth is that in universities we still  
fire on the diplomats.
Don't worry I don't put anyone in any category. (It could be *my*  
weakness, but then that's *my* problem, as you said).



>
>
>
>
>
>
>> but dislike the hypotheses and the methodology
>> (reasoning).
>
>
>
> If I could bloodywell understand it I might start to like it! Ain't my
> problem. It's YOURS


Ah, you say it here :)



>
>
> I didn't ask to be born with a desire to understand the fabric of
> reality. It afflicts me like a DISEASE


Me too. Many on this list, I think. Welcome.


>
>
>
>
>
>> The rationalists like the hypotheses and the reasoning,
>> but few appreciate the conclusion.
>
>
> That's because everybody only wants to see his own ideas confirmed by
> the reasoning. As Colin Hales says, scientists predict everything
> except a scientist.
>
> Even scientists want to be loved and appreciated, I guess


Human, too much human; said Nietzche.



>
>
>> I could send a post per month, taking
>> everything at zero.
>
>
> That's fine. This is perhaps your BIGGEST challenge dear Bruno. You
> need to take it slowly and ENJOY the challenge my dear


I will certainly enjoy it, especially if you play well the candid  
naive role!





>>
>>
>> Have you an intuition that consciousness is not material?
>
>
>
> Of course! If we take every score of Beethoven's 3rd symphony and burn
> them - if we trash every orchestral recording ever made of it - if we
> get every conductor and player who could remember parts of it or all
> of it and ERASED their memories of it or just murdered them outright
>
>
> I still believe Beethoven's 3rd symphony STILL exists. You will
> doubtless say "in Platonia"
>
>
> Music IS a bunch of mathematical objects spinning in their own space.
> Why I cry for some reason when I see Garrett Lisi's E8 thingy. It's
> MUSIC goddam it!!!
>


OK.



>
>
>>
>>
>> In case you were not serious, it is ok also.
>
>
> I am UNSERIOUSLY SERIOUS. I am not so "serious" that I have any pre-
> conceived notions about what I want. When I look in the mirror in the
> morning I always say to the guy looking back "Who the fuck are  
> you????"


Excellent question.  It is Ramana Maharshi koan. You may be surprised  
of the answer, or perhaps the non-answer.
You may be overwhelmed by what a universal machine can say, or cannot  
say,  when she asks herself the question.



You know (and now I am serious)) UDA+MGA is already a layman version  
of what I want to share (AUDA).

And this for two key reasons:

- if you are serious in interdisciplinary studies, you have to be  
aware that scientist are "layman" when just outside their own  
specialities.
    (and you have to find scientists who are aware of that, if not you  
are in trouble. perhaps only laymen can understand?)

- if you get a bit of the technical point which is awaiting for you,  
then you will learn to appreciate, I hope, that the Universal Machine  
could be a sort of ultimate layman.



>
>
> I exist in an INFINITUDE OF INSTANTIATIONS IN THE MULTIVERSE
>
> I believe they are all talking at you now!!!!


No. I see one  dreaming at the window ...


OK, Kim, you ask, you will suffer ... But please, feel free to say  
stop or enough, or "you lost me", or "I am busy", or whatever ...

... soon on your screen. I will think a bit before.

Bruno

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

Reply via email to