On 14 Sep 2011, at 07:27, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

The rules are at bottom the laws of physics.
That doesn't mean anything. The laws of physics are the rules. That's why I say it's circular reasoning. I ask you what is a rule, and you
say it's at the bottom of laws, but laws are just another word for
rule. There is no bottom, because there's nothing there. It's an
intellectual construct.
Of course it's an intellectual construct, but it has predictive power.
I agree. Deferent and epicycle have predictive power too. It doesn't
mean they can't be understood in a greater context with more
explanatory if not predictive power.

And that's what Bruno is trying to do - provide explanations in terms of arithmetic; which he takes as basic. But explanation is cheaper than prediction.

But comp predicts, given that it predicts the predictable observable. To get more quantitative results asks for a lot of work and time. But comp predicts all what is predictible, at different levels or modalities, and it predict in principle much more given that it gives a glimpse on the complexity of death and all first person possible experiences. It shows also the abyssal complexity of numbers' epistemologies, and it frees the universal machine from all normative theories (the usual velleity of "other" local universal machines).

It is not for practical quantitative prediction, at least not before we get the physical laws from numbers' theology, but we are interested in fundamental question, aren't we?



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