Hi John,

I will answer your post as soon as possible. I am a bit busy those  
days (september exams, administrative things, ...).

At the same time, the sequel of the "seven step series" should be part  
of that answer, but this is what I will explain ...

Thanks for letting me know your interest,


On 06 Sep 2009, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote:

> Bruno,
> 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 comp.science. (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 don't.
> 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 figments.
> "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?).
> John
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
> 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
> 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-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to