there is a lot of wisdom in your post. Your last sentence, however, may
apply to that wisdom as well I am afraid.

"...I have to assume that [such] truth are not dependent of me,..." -
nor on anything else we may know of. I stay clear of 'truth' which is
applied in whoever's theory - as 'his' truth.
I am in trouble with the "Church Thesis", it seems to be anchored in the *math
of functions* and applied to **. (BTW "recursive functions"
pointing back to themselves? a restriction into what has been known
(already)?  I may have the wrong idea (if any) about the Ch-Th of course.)
It may be 'fundamental' in - what I consider - a segment of the totality.

I can accept the 'universal machine' as not restricted to mathematical comp,

it definitely should not apply those binary-slanted algorithms. I consider
it as
some analogue 'think-tank' beyond our present terms. Whatever I would try to
characterize it with, is MY restriction to its unlimited capabilites. So I

Bruno, is your own restriction  concentrated to 'physics' with 'math' as in:
("All theories in physics use at least that arithmetical fragment....")?
I love your extension of 'metaphors' (bosons) into galaxies and brains. They
certainly are, included into our presently valid "perceived reality" of

"Scientists do not commit themselves ontologically...."
Most - (especially the conventional ones) do. I find it a restriction of the
total into the so far experienced portion - even  to the *adjusted format of
those* - serving as the 'entirety this 'ontology' is based on.  I would love
to device an ontology for the 'totality' - that would explain lots of
questionmarks we still have in our ignorance (the how-s, why-s, and the
other 1000 to be modest).
I am not sure about the 'excluded middle' since that is excluded from a mere
segment we consider 'them all' while the entire set may include quite
another *middle*. (My usual objection against statistical conclusions and
probabilities of course, that are mere illusions of our human ways of
anticipatory thinking).

I intended this reflection to be 'positive' to your ideas, as considered
them in more ways than just 'arithmetically based' (numbers?).


On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

> On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
> > ...  Bruno has been arguign that numbers
> > exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
> > existence. The counterargument is that "existence" in mathematical
> > statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued
> > backwards
> I have never said that numbers exists because there are true
> mathematical statements asserting their existence.
> I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such
> truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary to
> even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a
> universal machine exists".  In the usual mathematical sense, like with
> the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists.
> I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are
> part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic
> way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does not
> depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can 'save
> your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA. And you don't need
> really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine.
> All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But
> fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp. May be very fertile
> one. Like galaxies and brains.
> Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate
> basic entities and relations in theories which are always
> hypothetical. I am just honest making explicit my use of the non
> constructive excluded middle in the arithmetical realm.
> You get stuck at step zero by a bullet you are ntroducing yourself, I
> 'm afraid.
> Bruno
> >

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

Reply via email to