Hi Soroud,

I hope you don't mind I answer in one post.

On 05 Jul 2011, at 21:18, B Soroud wrote:

Bruno, I am not sympathizing with the Neo-Platonist dogmatists.

I am not sympathizing with any dogmatists.

lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.

I have to say that I appreciate a lot Jason Resch comment. It is not such much a belief than a definition. If reality = a physical universe, let it be. My point is that if we assume mechanism, then there are reason to think that physical reality emerges from something else (basically from addition and multiplication, although it can be described also in term of abstraction and application of combinators or lamdda terms).

You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial experience for some independently existing and non-experiential matrix?

I want nothing. I am just pointing on the fact that mechanism is not compatible with materialism, and I suggest or illustrate that we can remain cold on those questions, and improve the clarity so that the question mechanism versus materialism leads to testable empiric consequences.

lol, I like this. Yes, it is my moral perogative to doubt reality- view (in the abstract sense)

OK. At least it looks like we share some anti-dogmatism.

So you mean I'm stuck in Brunoland forever?

No. I mean that if comp is correct then you are stuck in "consciousness" for ever, but it might be hard to interpret dues to th fact that we can survive amnesia, and that the word "you" is hard to define. I can explain why you have to make a risky bet to accept a finite circumscription of your 3-you, and I can explain why your 1-you escape all theories, and is not even nameable (always assuming comp, and sometimes assuming the classical theory of knowledge (by Theaetetus, notably).

Honestly... I have never read your work... it is over my head and I reject it in principle... because it goes 100% counter to my intuition and good sense (in so far as I understand it from the things you seem to say)

I appreciate your frankness. I agree that comp is counterinituive, but not much more than Quantum Mechanics, and I would say, science in general. We all see clearly that the sun moves around us, don't we?

If it didn't sound so outright ridiculous.... I might go deeper into it.

It is a reasoning. It is then followed by an arithmetization of the reasoning which translate the problem in a mathematical/physical problem. I don't see why you feel it as outright ridiculous. I am not putting in doubt anything believed, just showing that with the comp assumption things might be deeper than what we remind of Aristotle. The discovery of the universal machine, by Post, Turing, Church, etc. shed a lot of light on the mind body problem, if only to explain it, and to show that it is not yet solved.

There is not much radical independent thinking.... there is no aristotle or descarte or kant in Buddhism.....

There is an interesting book by Tchebarski (I will search for the references later) on buddhist logic, and they are many quite good argumentators. Most tradition allows comment, and accept critics on comment, and discussion, and most assertion admits different interpretation in many different school. Now, you are right: some tradition develop clerical habits, and some period can see the religion used to manipulate gullible people. But that happens everywhere, even in academies.

"If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence."

We must be confused, or I must be confused.... because you are way to clever to not get what seems so simple and straightforward to me.... so there must be some kind of confusion....

because I would respond to this by saying: the dependence is, if there was no human thought, there would be no such statement.

And you are right. But I was not talking on the statement itself, but on the meaning of the statement. Without humans, no human will state "galaxies have many stars", but the galaxies does not need the humans to have many stars. Likewise, the truth (not its human expression) of Ex(x=x) might not depend on the humans. I have evidence that the moon was the moon before life appeared on the planet, and I have evidence that 17 was already prime a long time before the first human realized it is the case that 17 is prime. To be sure "17 is prime" is not even in category of what can evolve in time.

lol, Bruno, lets not argue... we will eternally disagree.

The fun is when we disagree. Nothing is more boring than a conversation between people who agree. If we disagree eternally, we will have fun eternally. Cool :)

Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non- experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience and accounts for the primary reality of the world?

Yes. The non-experimental truth is the ability to make sense of addition and multiplication. With (N,+,*) you can prove the existence of universal numbers, and you, like any universal number, can prove that they cannot stop on the question where does the number come from? That mystery will remain.

How can we have a truth about a reality we can't relate to.... and how can there be a reality that is "higher" or more fundamental then us but not more conscious and intelligent and powerful then us?

We cannot have a truth about a reality we can't relate to. But we can relate to realities that we feel non temporal. This happens when we listen to music, do love, do drugs, and, formidably, when we do mathematics. Sometimes we can feel that eternity in anything, even driving a car, or paying taxes (!). But the study of math is the simplest way to develop some acquaintances with the realm of the independent truth. Since Gödel, we know that simple truth really hide an unimaginable amount of complexity. An object like the Mandelbrot illustrates that too, and the notion of computer per se can help to understand where the complexity come from: they do some mess in Platonia, a mess which was unexpected by them, although intuited (see the chapter on Numbers by Plotinus, for example). At least we comp we can explain ho we related to them, because our bodies and mind result from an infinite competition among them. The higher reality is both simpler than us, and more complex than us. It is amazing, but explainable by the distinction between the points of view, and those distinction are not human made, they are universal machine made. This extends Everett relativity to arithmetic. There is no much choice in the matter, beside abandoning comp for taste prejudice.

We are god, and outside the normal physical world of interacting relations... there is no truth or being. All metaphysics is fiction.... Human-created.... for there is no other being! We are the highest! We are making everything up!

That is, I'm afraid, the big problem with (some) humans. They feel superior. You can say "I am God", you can say "we are God", but not in any sense preventing anyone to be God. You just don't know, especially as a scientist. If human continue to feel superior, God might invest on a more humble creature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgZpv_Dlbk8

You will never find a reality apart from the so called phenomenal world.... which you can either directly experience and study and appreciate and enjoy.... or you can live in your own abstract conceptual understanding of the world...

We can propose theory, and test them. Computationalism does not discard the relation between reality and the phenomenal world.
Only, the phenomenal world is not all what is.

Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter....

Not at all. I assume digital mechanism, then I explain why consciousness preceded matter, in some sense. Human consciousness (or human unconsciousness) follows matter.

then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter.... i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are
not conscious..... and intellect and understanding in any real sense
are found in even later stage terrestrial forms, and we have physical
explanations for this.......

For a reason similar to the reason that artificial intelligence build competent intellectual machine, playing chess, before succeeding in machine's walking. From inside we confuse temporal evolution and the logical deduction. That is why I do follow Pratt, and King, on the dualism between set (3-person in Pratt) and boolean Algebra. It is already a sort of points of view distinction in math (mathematically hard, or not, to directly apply in the comp frame, for technical reason). I think that stable measure makes us very rare in reality branches, and the branches being very numerous, in at least an intuitive rendering of the measure problem. But that is a good and important question which we have to work on.

Bruno sins against naturalism and all that we know and intuit.

I love you Pseudonymous. You confirm so well my feeling that materialists are religious about this. So I sin? So just proposing a theory is a sin? That's an idolatry of nature. I do give her just a more solid base: the natural numbers. Pun included.

He will do anything to resurrect from the dead some rudimentary and
vague Mysticism.

I "resurrect" it from what any universal computer (including you) can discover by looking inward, and staying enough self-referentially correct. In a sense, all what I say is that we can already listen to the machines.

Soroud, I appreciate your skepticism. And I see you are aware of the mind-body problem, which is crucial. UDA does not need much knowledge in math or computer science, and the first seven steps are easy, and give the main picture. The step 8 is more difficult, and I admit that some effort should be done, and we can come back on this in the list (cf the 323 principle which I hesitate to put or not in the comp hyp.). UDA can give some metaphysical vertigo, but that is a bit the goal. It is a bit like the effect of drug, and there too, some headache can happen. The point is not to propose a new system, just to show the difficulty we get when keeping two systems in place (mechanism and weak materialism). Then I keep mechanism, for the sake of the reflection, and I look on the origin of physics "in the head" of the universal machine (the key computer science object), as the thought experiences/ experiment (the 1 and 3 views) suggests. Of course this second part is more demanding for the effort in math. Yet the reversal itself is not so much difficult to grasp, and nobody ask you to believe the conclusion, just to see that they follow from the assumptions. You seem to agree that we are ignorant. A good understanding of comp can help to realize that we are even much more ignorant than we could have conceived before the discovery of the universal machine. Despite universal machines have recently multiplied (the home computer, the nth generation of mobile-phone, etc.), most people does not seem to really grasp the notion of universal machine and universal numbers. For UDA, you need only to understand that we can program one computer to start an infinite computation zig-zagging on *all* computations, and this in a super-redundant way.

You might take a look to zooms on the Mandelbrot set. Here too, a very simple relation z_n+1 := z_n^2 + 1, in the "complex number" leads to a super-fractal, which is not just similar, but more and intricate and complex.

I have read the post where you complain about math as a plague (My theory here is that you confuse math and some math teacher(s)). Am I right?

Take a look at a non deep zoom, very pedagogical, like

The Mandelbrot set border is a curve, delineating a connected part of the plane. But that curve is terribly intricate, and is made of tinier version of the Mandelbrot set. Between any mini-mandelbrot set, there is an infinity of mini-mandelbrot sets. Actually the Mandelbrot set surrounds itself by an infinity of minibrots (as they are often named) which organized themselves so as to mimick their neighborhood 2, 4, 8, 16, ... 2^n, ... times, making the 2^n rings of neighborhood denser and denser on the smaller and smaller minibrots. This is well illustrated in

The platonia, today, is not simply containing triangles and circles, and regular solids, it contains also the Mandelbrot set, which illustrates many feature of nature (mandelbrot was found of clouds!). The Mandelbrot set illustrates the complexity of the relation between numbers. It might even be equivalent to it, in which case it would be a compact view of a universal dovetailing.

You don't need to be a mathematician to enter in the academia, Soroud, but you will become a mathematician if you enter. And if comp is correct, you already entered, so strictly speaking we have just to remind you of some things and different things.

You might read the novel By Daniel Galouye "SIMULACRON III". The hero didn't get the logical point, but the heroine did.


Ah! but the only problem is that when we finish a post, you have already sent many others. I will answer here. It looks we do agree on key things:

I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING.

I agree totally. And with the discovery of the universal machine we have good reason to make vastly bigger our ignorance. And assuming comp, we have an explanation of why that ignorance is big, but also, how knowledge somehow can only make it bigger.

[Oops, a difficult post that I pass.]  *see below*

it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or Neo- Platonism or Kaballah or whatever.... they are all ultimately satisfactory and incoherent.

You cannot be that quick. People reason or try to reason on deep questions on which other people have thought about, and this in human context where you can have trouble when you forget the human law "the boss is always right". To be frank, you look a little bit like you forget that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING. If you agree you know next to nothing, how can you be so quick in evaluating the works of the others, especially in a complex if not taboo fields?

So there is no superstructure that is satisfactory and coherent and that really really makes sense and makes sense of things that any science can support or subsume.

Comp entails that what you say is true about arithmetic when seen from inside. It looks like a reductionism, but it is an antireductionnism, even on just the numbers, relatively to each other. We are not "stupid" machines. It is the machines which are not "stupid".

I know it was hard to accept the monkey is our cousin, and I am patient with those who take times to recognize themselves in number relations (especially that this is impossible, in the 1-way, when necessary in the 3-way like with comp).

We are lost in the land of paradoxes, mysteries, antinomies, neither/ nor's and absurdities.

The strategy consists to confront the universal machine with them. Paradoxes resolve into infinities, loops, insolubilities and incompleteness, games, conflicts, etc. That is theoretical computer science. Theology is, somehow, theoretical computer science minus computer's theoretical computer science.
Universal machine ignorance obeys laws.

I come back to the post I passed:

Bruno, is it possible that there is no "fundamental reality" or
"primary reality"... and even if there was, and it was non-
observational or non-experiential.... why would it matter to us?

Whatever is the fundamental reality, you are related to it. Fundamental reality might be different from what we observe, measure, etc. But it needs observable feature to be a reality, at least a human reality. It certainly matter, like it could matter the day your daughter tell you that your step son has an artificial brain. Given the exponential and superexponential growing complexity of the relation between numbers on this planet (made possible by DNA, then brain, then computers, etc.) it might matter more and more.

It seems to me that reality or knowledge always implies a blind
dualism that reflects the way in which "we" ("I") experience phenomena
(subject/object, knower/known distinction-absurdity)

There is such a dualism. Self-duplication thought experiments exemplifies it. In the math, the distinction between the false and a proof of the false, is made necessary in the classical theory of knowledge.

If reality is the Other and we are derived from the Other and this
Other is transcendent or "fundamental".... then what of this "Other"
and what is its relation to us, or what is our relation to it.... does
it have any subjectivity and do we have any ultimicity in relation to

Comp answers this somehow, but it is better to understand by oneself, starting from the assumptions. To answer this bluntly will make you say something like "I don't like that", and forget about it. The more correct we are on our probable universal environment, the more we get free of it, and free to explore many dimensions of reality.

It seems like any reality is assumed to not be us and we are assumed
to be related to it... therefore it is separate and either conceived
of as blind and inferior to us, our super conscious and superior to

and why are we seemingly superior to this other...

And are we?

Unless you assume we are the One.... then I would tell you that the
One is absurd.

It might depend on which One.

Ah gosh, still a mail. I will only answer this:

I don't think Bruno has really articulated to us his theology... I
don't think he has any real system.

I did. See my paper on Plotinus. It is certainly a toy theology, but as far as I know, and as far as we are correct (close to God-Truth) it applies to us, and it makes at the least of proof of consistency of Plotinus with respect to arithmetic. You just show up prejudices. the work is done, which sometimes embarrassed me a little bit. The weakness is that it leads to complex open question in mathematical logic. But then it should be obvious that the universal machine theology might be not so trivial. You say that you know nothing, why don't you do a bit of research and reflexion?

I feel a sincere and genuine questioning, followed by a refusal to dig the questioning in the theoretical frame. Which I can understand given the subject.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to