On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:06, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

all is number? but was there not all before number? numbers need their
objects.

Why. It looks to me I need numbers to distinguish object, even to distinguish them form myself. I can easily conceive numbers without object, but not vice versa.

Not also, that no one said that all is numbers. Indeed we know to day, that if "3-all is number then 1-all is vasltly greater than all the numbers".

numbers must refer to something...

Why? I got the ffeliong that you assume a primitive physical reality. I do not. (nor do I assume there is no such physical reality). But I do show such a reality emerge from the numbers, once you assume that the brain function like a machine.


the symbol must have its
substaces, even if that substaces is relatively indeterminate
independent of the symbol, or only visible via the symbol. Numbers are
a relationship between "thinker" and something else which encompasses
and differentiates from it. There is an interaction going on and
number is the intermediary.

It seems to me that you are trying to resurrect some possibility of a
theosophical mysticism.... which is predicated on immortality or it
has no substance at all, and immortality is further predicated on some
kind of Other World that is the sum of all positive attributes.

I just show that mechanism is incompatible with (weak) materialism.




Not that I criticize your attempt, anything that complicates a simple
common sense realism I am in favor of.... but I don't see how reading
Platos Republic or Timeaus or Parmenides is gonna help us move
forward.... neither do I see how mathematics equals "what is"

It does not. If my body is a machine, then neither mind nor matter are completely mathematical (unless you enlarge the sense of mathematics). The main point is that neither mind, nor matter are primitively physical. I just show that mechanism does not solve the mind-body problem per se, but on the contrary that it can help going to a mathematical formulation of the problem.



and only
equals what is..... neither do I see how Pythagorean Tektraktys or
"source of nature in eternal motion" or Indianism is gonna help us
move forward?

you seem to optimistic about spiritualistic possibilities.

It seems that you Bruno, are trying to covertly resurrect a kind of
Platonism

Have you study the UD Argument? It shows that if we assume that the brain works like a universal machine at some description level, then Aristotle theology get falsified. Not Plato's one.

I am a logician. I don't try to find some truth. I just show that if you believe in this theory, then you have to believe in that theory. I assume a minimal amount of rationality, which is made eventually precise. And yes, I do argue that comp, (not me) resurrect Plato and Plotinus. I provide a clear arithmetical interpretation of those discourses. You might take a look on my paper on Plotinus (on my url front page).

Bruno




On May 29, 12:15 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 29 May 2011, at 20:22, selva kumar wrote:











On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
Hi selva,

On 16 May 2011, at 16:49, selva wrote:

Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a
separate causal domain..
there is no domain shear between the different domains(different
parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence..
It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect
relationships..
everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is
because it ought to be such.
There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting
the universe..
If this is right,

This can't be right, if we assume that the brain (or whatever
capable of sustaining consciousness) can be emulated by a Turing
machine, as most people believe.

then how can we say ,we have free will ?

A determinist theory of free will is possible. What counts is that
no machine can determine itself completely, so that the determinism
of his/her behavior is known only by "God", not by the machine, nor
by machine of equivalent complexity.
Now, if you mean that free will is the capacity to disobey to
arithmetic, then it does not exist, most probably.

why is there binary state at all ?

OK. You could have asked equivalently: why is there natural numbers?
Logicians have shown last century that this is impossible to answer.
Actually we need the natural numbers to ask "why natural numbers".
They cannot be recover from any simpler theory. So we have to have
some faith in them. It is part of the initial postulates.

if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ?
why is the 50-50 probability arises ?

Such a probability can be explained by self-duplication. If you are
a machine, I can scan you (in principle) and duplicate you in two
different places. You cannot predict in advance what will be your
subjective experience after the duplication. BTW, this can be used
to explain that free-will is not explainable by the use of
indeterminacy.

why is there probability functions at all ?

Assuming we are digital machines, the answer is that the reality of
realities is very huge. There is an infinity of computations going
through your actual state of mind, and computer science explains why
no machine can know which computations, nor even which sheaf of
computations support it. There is automatically a statistics for the
observable.

If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the
positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean
you don't have a free will ?

Why? On the contrary. To have free will you must have some ability
to make change around you. You certainly need some amount of
determinacy.

can i argue that the my ability to make change around me arises from
the changes around me..
you are now thinking what you are thinking only because i asked you
this....that is,with your so called ability i am changing some
thing,and that changed things gives you the ability to change things
around you..so going backwards..(events are affected only by the
past occurences in the cone).wont we come to a single cause?

Yes. Assuming we are machine, elementary arithmetic is enough. And we
cannot justify this with less than arithmetic, making it a theory of
everything. The Pythagoreans were right, after all. They are redeemed
by Church thesis.











Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe).

If by universe you mean "physical universe", it is not clear if that
exist. Strictly speaking it is an open problem. With mechanism we
can say that there are many dreams, and we can say that some dreams
glue well together to form shared dreams. But it is not known if
they glue so well as to define a singular physical universe, or even
just a singular physical multiverse. Extremely hard question.

Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the
universe..?

You might be naive about "we", "body" and "universe". No problem, it
is a tradition since theology has been abandon to politics 1500
years ago, in Occident. (Closure of Plato Academy in Athena, about
525 after JC).

Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at
all ?

If you accept the idea that your brain can be simulated at some
correct level of substitution (so that you would survive a digital
brain substitution), then the additive and multiplicative structure
of numbers defines a vast "block mindscape", containing many dreams
(as seen from inside). Some dreams glue and generate sharable (among
collectivities of "universal numbers) deep histories, which are seen
as universe appearance from their points views. The physical realm
does not disappear, but is secondary to the "numbers dreams". The
physical realm is still fundamental, but it is epistemological, not
ontological.
You might read the shortest paper(*) I wrote to sum up the
consequences of taking seriously the *assumption* that we are Turing
emulable. We discussed it a lot. Some have not yet seen the point,
I'm afraid. I sum up it provocatively sometimes by saying that if we
are rational machine, then we have to abandon the theology of
Aristotle (atheism christianism etc.) for the theology of Plato
(objective idealism, Pythagorism, some budhist and indian school or
thought). In the first one there is an emphasis on the 'creation'.
In the second one the creation is a sign of something else (actually
arithmetic).
(*)http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract ...

everything affects everything or not ?

In which sense? In our local physical realm even a big supernova
explosion far away, cannot affect you here and now.
In the arithmetical realm every truth is connected, but perhaps in a
more trivial sense. They are infinities of intermediate modalities.

Take it easy. We are in deep water. Ask any question.

Bruno

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 
athttp://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 everything-list@googlegroups.com .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group 
athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

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 .


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.

Reply via email to