Right on and Onward - Stephen, that is my point as well. Our thinking loop is closed "inside" our mind.
On another list (psich etc. mainly) they babble about '*wave* as the FORM of energy etc. and I asked the big question I have asked many physicists (and the best answer was: "Good question") WHAT IS THE MARVEL YOU PEOPLE CALL - E N E R G Y ? Moving (changing) cannot come from the 'inside (view?)' otherwise why was 'it' in the position "to be moved/changed" FROM to begin with? In my (naive) worldview going one little step back from the Big Bang(?) into a 'Plenitude' of everything in perfect (and unlimited) symmetry with total interaction (postulating violations of itself - as I tried to explain) (Karl Jaspers Forum 2003 "Networks of Networks") where I tried to approach the 'motive' as the trend to RETURN to the symmetry from 'complexities' (like the Big Crunch, Black holes, infinite dissipation and similar daydreams). It may "DO" things assigned to that so called 'energy'. But this was also only MY daydream from WITHIN. I tried to "trap" Bruno (whom I appreciate no end) into some idea HOW numbers can do ANYTHING (e.g. GENERATE a change/movement) but in vain. If 'universal numbers' (new to me after my 'vacation') can indeed compute, they need initiation to do so. Our primitive embryonic computers have to be plugged into electricity to work. Otherwise they are expensive paperweights. What is a 'universal number' *plugged in * to do anything? or is it only OUR thinking to do 'numbery' functions? Where do WE draw our mobility from? Not from explanation/definition of how we act. So - in spite of our agreement, dear Stephen, there MUST BE an outside view - we just don't get it. We may get the result of it and try to explain within our ignorance. In Colin's mini-solipsism. Chaque-un a son gout. Thanks for reflecting to my post and best wishes to all John On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John! > > "No outside view"!!!! That is the point that I was trying to make from > the start. This is why I keep repeating that Numerical Idealism is an > insufficient theory of everything; there cannot be an "outside" that acts to > distinguish numbers from each other! An interesting discussion of this can > be found here: http://kims.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/time_XIV.pdf > > > Onward! > > Stephen > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Mikes > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011 > > (Including Stephens initiation of course). > After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to > the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones. > Maybe the words changed, references, too, conclusions are more > sophisticated (?). SOME new members, as well > (Please, give me credit for all those poisons the medics stuffed me > withp impeding my brain and clarity of mind, if > I ever had any such thing. > What I see here is a Colin-position pointing to 'theoretical > justification of the validity of math-statements' and Bruno's position > based > on Bruno's position (comp included, valid, or not). Hard to argue > because all the sophistication is based on the present status of our > limited ignorance and unlimited explanatory breadth of Colin's > mini-solipsism (i.e. the part of the world we so far got a glimpse > of). > Our sciences dwell within and reach out in their conclusions to those > unknowables we 'imagine' (calculate?) from that partial view of the so > far experienced (and explained by the limited ways). Such is our > 'scientific' view and I think none of us can be exempt to that. > We think what we think we know. We conclude within. > > By such limited tools humanity established an incredible technology > and descriptions galore to explain it to ignorants within the > ignorance. Physics, engineering, bio, psych, etc. etc. And a > mathematics - so fundamental in Bruno's words(?) about numbers. > What we see is a complex interlacing of not always discernible items > allowing more to be involved. > Upon such views humanity could not have established its 'scientific' > (technological) results, but being anchored into it may interfere > with further understanding of the unknown. Of course we cannot think > beyond our mind-contents/function limited as it may be. > (My fundamentals among others: Colin and Robert Rosen). > > What the WORLD is, if it exists (what does that mean?) what we call a > "universe" or "existence" is hazy. No outside view. > > With best wishes to 2011 and beyond > > John Mikes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
