Bruno, our posts just crossed each other. I'm still here and listening and thinking hard.

## Advertising

We are busy, as you say, but listening and thinking about the realities has to be part of that, so I ensure that I set aside time to follow your reasoning. I may translate part of the Brussels thesis soon and release on the list, just to prove that the act of translating is also the act of arriving at a compatible understanding of what i translate. You will tell me if I am any good at it and please be frank. Start with ZERO - it's more "mysterious" than 1 K On 05/02/2009, at 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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 ... :) > > Best, > > Bruno > > 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". > > > 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---