On 21 Apr 2009, at 21:30, John Mikes wrote:
> you made my day when you wrote:
> "SOMEHOW" - in:
> "...The machine has to be "runned" or "executed" relatively to a
> universal machine. You need the Peano or Robinson axiom to define
> such states and sequences of states.
> You can shuffled them if you want, and somehow the UD does shuffle
> them by its dovetailing procedure, but this will not change the
> arithmetical facts that those states belong or not too such or such
> computational histories...."
> First: my vocablary sais about 'axiom' the reverse of how it is
> used, it is our artifact invented in order to facilitate the
> application of our theories IOW: explanations for the phenomena so
> poorly understood (if anyway). So it is MADE up for exactly the
> purpose what we evidence by it.
> Second: UD "shuffles 'them' by the ominous 'somehow', (no idea: how?)
By dovetailing. I say "somehow", to say literally "in some fashion
those who knows what the UD is can work by themselves as exercise,
because I am lazy right now and it will make the post too much longer,
> but it has to be done for the result we invented as a 'must be'.
Absolutely. And it does it, all by himself in the realm of numbers +
addition + multiplication.
> Third: the 'computational history' snapshots have to come together
> (I am not referring to the sequence, rather to the combination
> between 'earlier' and 'later' snapshots into a continuum from a
> discontinuum. That marvel bugs science for at least 250 years since
> chemical "thinking" started.
> A sequence of pictures is no history.
We agree on this. See my post to Kelly. From outside, the links are
given by universal (or not) programs. From inside, it is linked to the
most probable histories + interference between the undistinguishable
one. QM without collapse confirms this, admittedly startling, view.
> Then again: you wrote:
> "...The world you are observing is a sort of mean of all those
> computations, from your point of view. But the "running of the UD"
> is just a picturesque way to describe an infinite set of
> arithmetical relations..."
> I am not sure about the "mean" since we are not capable of even
> noticing 'all of them', not to evaluate the totality for a 'mean' -
> in my not arithmetic vocabulary: a median "meaning" of them all
By accepting Church thesis, we accept Gödel's Miracle. We can define,
inside, the universal-outside. WE cannot compute the correct inside
mean, but it has to be partially computable for a physical worlds to
exists. So we can bet on reasonable approximations. The "real" comp
physics will be unusable in practice, but will explain in theory (and
thus prevent its elimination) the presence of subject.
> Your words may be a flowery (math that is) expression of 'viewing
> the totality in its entirety' which is just as impossible (for us,
> today) as to realize your 'infinite set of arithmetical relations'.
> If I leave out the 'arithmetical' (or substitute it by my
> meaningfulness) then we came together in 'viewing the totality' in
> our indiviual wording-ways.
> "Relations" is the punctum salience, it is a loose enough term to
> cover whatever is beyond our present comprehension.
No I really use "relation" in the usual math sense. For exemple a
binary relation on N can be seen as a subset of NXN. It is just an
association, a set of couples or triples, etc.
> When relations look differently (maybe by just our observation from
> a different aspect?) we translate it into physical terms like
> change, movement, reaction, process or else, not realizing that WE
> look at it from different connotations.
You are far to quick here. But there is something like that.
> Use to that our coordinates (space and time) in the limited view we
> can muster (I call it: "model") and we arrived at causality of the
> conventional sciences (and common sense thinking as well).
That is what I hope for.
> Indeed it is our personal (mini)-solipsistic perceived reality of
> OUR world
> washed into some common pattern (partially!) by comp or math or else.
The advantage of the present approach is that it presupposes only the
"yes doctor and Church thesis", all the rest emerges from, well not
OUR (the human) prejudices/dreams, but OUR (the universal machine)
> By the maze of such covering umbrella we believe in adjusted thinking.
> Please do not conclude any denial from my part against the 'somehow'
> topics, the process-function-change manipulations (unknown, as I
> it is only reference to my ignorance directed in my agnosticism
> towards made-up explanations of any cultural era (and changing fast).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at