Hi Kim,

Still interested?

I must say I was wrong. I cannot explain to you the functioning of a  
computer without doing math. Orally, drawing on a black board, I would  
have been able to explain a big part of it, and simultaneously hiding  
the mathematics. But I realize now that even this would have been a  
bad idea and would have made things more difficult in the longer run,  
given the ambition of the project.

After all, I am supposed to explain to you how, when we assume the  
comp hypothesis, the ultimate realities become mathematical in nature,  
even arithmetical or number theoretical. But how could I explain this  
to you without doing a bit of mathematics.

Mathematics is a curious music that only the musicians can hear.  
Mathematicians play with instruments that only them can hear.
To listen to a mathematician, you have to be a mathematician and play  
the instrument. Fortunately, all universal machine like you, are a  
mathematician, and when a human seems to feel he is not a  
mathematician, it just means the mathematician living within is a bit  
sleepy, for a reason or another.

Especially that I am realizing that some people confuse a computation  
with a description of a computation, which are two very different  
mathematical objects (albeit relative one) existing in Platonia. This  
plays a key role in the articulation of the step seven with the step  
eight. It plays a key role to understand the computationalist  
supervenience thesis, and thus where the laws of physics come from,  
and of course it is strictly needed when ultimately we interview the  
universal Lobian machine.

So, the time has come I cure your math anxiety, if you or some others  
are still interested. I can awake the mathematician in you (like I can  
awake the mathematician living in any universal entity, btw :).

I propose we begin with the numbers, and, to keep our motivation  
straight, I propose we meditate a little bit on the distinction  
between numbers and descriptions of numbers, and notations for  
numbers. It is a bit like the difference between a symphony and a  
symphony's partition ....

Given the importance of such distinction in the whole drama, it is  
worth to get those conceptual nuances clear right at the beginning.

I really propose to you to begin math at zero.

But now I am already stuck: should I explain first the number 1,  
or ... the number zero?
A tricky one that number zero ... :)



PS I now you are busy. I propose we go at the minimum of your rhythm  
and mine. But I tell you that "the poem is long".


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to