On 10 Jul 2009, at 22:52, Johnathan Corgan wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 22:24 +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I suddenly feel sorry putting too much burden on just one
>> correspondent in the list, and I would appreciate if someone else
>> could propose answers or any remarks to the exercises.
> Bruno--you're doing great.  I think it is the case where silence means
> "I understand, continue", rather than disinterest.

Well, thanks, OK, perhaps.

>> There is also some sort of burden onto me, because it is hard to
>> explain "the real thing" concerning the seventh step, without
>> explaining or just illustrating at least some relevant portion of the
>> mathematical reality: mainly the unexpected mathematical discovery of
>> the universal functions, sets, numbers, systems, language,  
>> machine ...
>> I don't mention the absence of drawing ability which does not help.
> The derivation of your thesis from first principles is a very  
> compelling
> idea.  The somewhat startling and unorthodox conclusions you espouse  
> are
> bound to cause confusion unless all their underpinnings are well
> understood.

There are two things. Understanding the conclusions, and understanding  
how we get to them.
Many variations are possible in between are possible for varied  

> The arguments from others then can have a much more
> specific target than the top-level conclusions; instead they will come
> out earlier in the derivation process and at the time of  
> introduction of
> the controversial subject.

But what is controversial? I have never heard about something  
controversial seen in the reasoning. The conclusion are astonishing,  
and certainly annoying for someone who believes "religiously" in both  
physicalism and digital mechanism.
The subject matter was controversial a long time ago, but today, it is  
no more, I think. Well, it depends on which circle. That something  
appears in the academy (like studies on consciousness, does not mean  
that all academicians understand the questioning there, alas).
I have heard that the first person indeterminacy, which is my mean  
early contribution, is controversial, but I have never seen any  
controversy on it, just sometimes, some discussion on the vocabulary  
or definition, which does not change any conclusion.
The subject matter is difficult, so it easier for the "religious"  
people (like convinced atheists, to be clear) to speculate about some  
difficulties they don't even try to single out.
I proceed in the scientific way, which means that I just ask  
questions, and anyone can verify what follows from what, or interrupt  
and present an objection. Up to now, none of the "real" objections  
presented were fatal, and eventually those reduce also to a problem of  

>> The knowledge of most people participating to the discussion is very
>> varied, due to the extreme transdiciplinarity of the subject, and the
>> interest it can evidently have for the layman (and indeed, for any
>> universal machine).
> While I do have training in math and physics, I still benefit from  
> your
> targeting the motivated layman.  Personally, I'm not interested in  
> doing
> the exercises on the list, but they are still useful to check my
> understanding.


>> Best regards to all of you, and thanks for letting me know your
>> interests,
> By all means, proceed.  Personally, if I don't understand something or
> have an objection, you'll hear about it on the list, but I think you
> should take silence as assent.

If only silence could be assent!
But I am willing to take yours as such and I will proceed.




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

Reply via email to