On 06 Mar 2011, at 22:10, John Mikes wrote:

Andrew and Bruno:

(Re: Andrew's discussion below): according to what I pretend to understand of Bruno's position, the "math' universe (numbers and what they 'build' as the 'world') is more fundamental than the application we call physics. I wrote "more" because the real fundamental is based on the rel everything, still hidden from our knowledge and only parts transpire continually (since many millennia ago). We arrived at a stage, different from the one 1000 or 3000 years ago and devised a logic (or more) which is different from those applied earlier. Yet it is not the ultimate - or should I say not "all of them". There may be different logical ways in our future development (you may call it evolution, I don't) just as different arithmetics as well of which we state today "impossible".
So was the spherical Earth or molecular genetics.

A problem (in my mind) about "compute": does 'computing' include an evaluation of the result automatically, by the device itself, or does it need a "thinking" mind to valuate the computation? Does 'comp' act upon the result of its own computation? ( H O W ? )

The abstract entity or person, which is associated to computation, "within our comp model" (as you would say, but a logician would say here "within our comp theory") is the one doing the interpretation. So the (relevant) evaluation is included in the computing itself. I would not add "by the device itself", because the term device denotes more the "body" or hird person description, (which does not really exist, and is itself a creation of the person). The person's consciousness and body is somehow attached to infinite class of equivalence extracted from *all* the computations. The term "all" is itself justified by the miracle (Gödel's term) of the thesis of church, which makes such self-reference arithmetically definable.

Also the word "automatically" raises the question whether it requires some homunculus(?) - (call it a factor or any presently unknown dynamics?) instigating it for us rather than - or even BUILT IN as - a not-yet discovered intrinsic part of the functionality to be discovered?

It is has been discovered, I would say. It is a fixed point of self- observation. It is the one who will be described by all the arithmetical hypostases. It is built-in in all "rich" (Löbian) universal entities. You might call it an "homunculus", but it is just a universal number that knows that it is universal.

With my agnosticism (ignorance about the not-yet disclosed parts of the wholeness) it is hard to agree with any proof, truth, or evidence. The most I can do is a "potentially possible".

The question, in science, is never about agreeing or disagreeing. But of understanding the theory and its deductive rules, and to see if a derivation of a conclusion is valid or not. The question of the truth of our assumption is a matter of personal opinion, and can be discussed in philosophy.

Unfortunately, this is not very well know, and some scientist believes that in science we know some truth. But this is a confusion between science and philosophy. I appreciate philosophy and philosophical discussions, but to progress, it is useful to distinguish science from the philosophies which can be developed around it. Eventually that distinction is, in the comp theory ("within the comp model") somewhat captured by the splitting between G and G*. G playing the role of science, and G* playing the role of philosophy. Many philosophical statement can become "scientific" by just adding an interrogative mark like "?".

In our setting, a difficulty comes from the fact that we study "scientifically" (this really means "without the pretension of truth") both the science by the machine and the philosophy by the machine.



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

Reply via email to