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

## Advertising

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, Bruno 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/ > > > > > > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---