On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:

> For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of  
> matter,
> too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
> reffering to some "real" (in the sense of every day usage) object.
> So I find it unconvincing that conciousness "arises" out of numbers,  
> since
> it is inconceivable for me what numbers mean independent of me or  
> even the
> world I perceive.

Let me try a second reply (hopefully better). Actually I confess  
having not taking into account enough your "(!)" between "appearance"  
and "matter".

The game here consists in trying to understand, as far as possible,  
the riddle of the "appearance (!) of matter" and the mystery of  

Those terms are complex, we can hardly define them, but we may agree  
on some proposition, perhaps just for the sake of reasoning.

I think many agrees on the fact that none of us can doubt, here and  
now, its own consciousness. It is an example, albeit very personal, of  
true statement, even if it seems non expressible and non communicable  
(too bad, for that truth?(*))

And then, if only because it will make it possible to reason, some of  
us accept the intuitive idea that "my consciousness" could be  
preserved though digital encoding, annihilation and digital  
reconstruction (comp).

Then, reasoning leads to a fundamental conceptual simplification of  
the possible TOE.

In a nutshell, and roughly speaking the intended TOE where
- last century:  SWE + Wave-reduction+unintelligible theory of mind.
But in 1957, Everett proposes a better theory which is just  SWE +  
comp. Known as "Many World interpretation of quantum mechanics". (But  
it is not an interpretation of QM, it is simply another theory. The  
one you get when you drop the wave collapse in "old QM").
But then your servitor showed, that unless we drop indeed the reality/ 
notions of first person, and consciousness, and mind, etc. then, in  
case the SWE is indeed correct, it has to be derived from only comp.  
Like the collapse is derived from SWE.

Note that I am not pretending "having the truth" here. Comp may be  
false, and a collapse of the wave is not an entirely crackpot idea, if  
only people could develop a clear theory of that.
All what I say, is that taking comp seriously, we can indeed explain  
the appearances of the collapse in the memories of the average  
machine, like Everett showed, but we have to derive the SWE from comp  
alone (UDA). And we get that price: the difference between the  
communicable truth and truth, as a root for the subjective undoubtable  

But comp is not a trivial theory. To make the digitalness precise and  
general you need Church thesis, and you get the whole of the  
mathematical computer science and its embedding in mathematical logic,  
but also number theory, finite set theories, cartesian closed  
categories, I mean a vast range of mathematical discoveries which shed  
light on something new: *that* universal machine (and sub-universal  
little cousins). New, except that we are willing to bet nature already  
did it, through the brain, in the "consensual reality" sense. Indeed,  
that is comp, with a very large sense for "brain".

If only, the comp hyp makes COMPuter science two times more  
interesting, especially through mathematical logic which can describe,  
for simple lobian machine, the difference between the many modalities  
and their difference between truth, and the machine accessibility to  
those truth.

With, or wihout comp, relative numbers (machine) develop rich and  
complex theologies.

The soul is a number which moves itself, said Xenocratus (and  
Pythagorus). We may have to abandon Aristotelian theology for  
neoneoneo phytagorean Platonist like theology (quite transformed  
through Gödel, Mandelbrot, Post, Turing, ...).

Here is the (an) ontic part of reality; numbers with addition and  
multiplication. All the dreams are there, and coherent dreams cohere.

By numbers I mean 0, and its successors s(0), s(s(0)), etc. The "laws"  

For all x:   x + 0 = x
For all x and for all y: x + s(y) = s(x + y)
For all x:   x * 0 = 0
For all x and for all y: x * s(y) = (x * y) + x

Let me solve the exercise. Proving that 2 + 2 = 4, that is s(s(0)) +  
s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(0)))).

Use repetitively the second axiom "For all x and for all y: x + s(y) =  
s(x + y)".
Substituting x by s(s(0)), and y by s(0) in the second axiom gives
s(s(0)) + s(s(0) = s(s(s(0)) + s(0)).
This s(s(s(0)) + s(0)) is really s(   s(s(0)) + s(0)   ).
We have reduced the problem to to the problem  of s(s(0) +s(0).
Keep in mind not to forget the "s ( .... )" above. (***!!!***)
By the second axiom again: s(s(0) + s(0) is, with x = s(s(0)) and y =  
0: s( s(s(0)) + 0).
But by the *first* axiom (with x = s(s(0))), s(s(0)) + 0  = s(s(0)).
So s( s(s(0)) + 0) = s(s(s(0))). (substitution of identical).
Keeping in mind the "s" (cf (***!!!***)). , this gives s(s(s(s(0)))).  
Et voilà.

If you can find a simpler theory of everything. (given that, like  
Everett for QM, it explains how its internal relative interpretations  
emerge, once you "add the epistemology" (mainly the induction formula
(A(0) & For all x: A(x) -> A(s(x))) -> For all x: A(x)). This gives  
Löbianity and the non trivial 'theologies'.


(*) Here I assume you and me are not zombies, if this needs to be  
said.  Cf Tolerus.



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

Reply via email to