On 17 Jul 2010, at 19:30, Mark Buda wrote:
But seriously, I can't figure out where I've made a mistake.
You talk like if you know the truth. This is not the game favorized by
most people of the list, I think.
The game here is "science", or as close as possible (which is the very
essence of science). That means that we attempt to put all the carts
on the table, agree to admit some starting propositions, and some ways
of reasoning, and then derived propositions from that, and compared
those propositions with observation. The starting propositions are
called hypothesis, and strictly speaking we remains aware that they
may be false. They are always hypothesis, be it F = ma, E = mc^2, Ephi
= e phi, or even '0 ≠ s(x) for all x natural numbers'. We put the
carts on the table and we discuss with those who agree with them,
deducing facts; and confronting them, publicly with the third person
sharable observations, and privately with the non sharable one.
Here a difficulty is that we theorize in a field which contains terms
concerning non sharable knowledge, like the term "qualia", for
example. This makes the subject difficult and delicate, but then guess
We are lucky to live a rather wonderful discovery, which is the
discovery of the universal machine (a mathematical discovery) preceded
by a deep results concerning vast class of self-referential extensions
of those machines, and the discovery, mainly made by people like
Gödel, and Löb, leading to a completely axiomatizable, at some key
level of complexity, of the logic of self-reference, making it
possible to search an agreement on some definitions, or modelization
tools, and make the *question*, mainly the mind-body problem, or the
consciousness-reality problem amenable to a mathematical formulation
(in the frame of that hypothesis).
And I appreciate to share some modest findings, admittedly shocking
from an Aristotelian conception of reality wnating to keep mechanism.
Forgetting the greeks, it may be the originality of my work: to be
serious on the subject. Digital mechanism gives pretty much light
through computer science and number theory. I am just searching my key
near the réverbère, pal.
You may be interested to compare your findings with the discourse of
the universal machine which introspects itself. Some of your comments,
some of which notably attributes me beliefs that I haven't, but also
like truth which have the incommunicable status, (unless you are not
turing emulable), makes me think you have not really read my work with
enough attention, I'm afraid.
You may give a different theory (of everything), assuming or using in
some ways principles some can agree with. The list is open to many
theories, but most people here seems to agree that they are turing
emulable at some level, and from that we can already say a lot, even
on what cannot be said.
But coming here by talking like if you have found the truth is very
naïve, and then mentioning 2012, and coincidences makes some of us
fearing for your mental health. I have a dear friend whose fatal
mental illness begun by collecting coincidences.
All universal machine already knows that, as far as their are correct/
honest/sane, they can both find truth by introspecting themselves, or
looking inwards, but also knows that most of them, if not all, can
only be found in that only way (introspection), and they know that
communicating them can only lead to the contrary of what was naively
intended in the proposition (preventing other machine to pursue
correctly the inward looking). But NOT ONE universal machine knows
that she is correct/honest/sane, unless she is incorrect/dishonest/
insane. The public doubt remains, and has to remain. For correct
universal machine it is a sort of divine politeness (in Plotinus
I am serious about your powering coincidences problem. There are
coincidences, but if you weight them you can argue on the dangerosity
of cannabis, and develop all myths. It is rethorical sophistic technic
to manipulate people, and fear sellers exceeds at that. If you
continue to weight the coincidences, well, keep your findings for you,
or go in 2012 Forum, there are many, or eventually consult.
And to be sure not to be misunderstood by the others, I tell them, to
not reject everything concerning the "2012 idea". For example I could
argue that, in all its naivety, the following 2012 videos describes
rather well some occurring universal phenomena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYAMPA6AgZ4&NR=1 (please take nothing
But then I may argue that "2012" has already happened, at least in
mathematics, through the discovery of the universal machine(s). There
are many "2012".
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