Dear Bruno, you know I am not one of 'those' taking EM for granted (rather consider such things as ingenious HUMAN explanatory proposals for poorly understood phenomena we think to receive over the millennia). *Statistical,* however, is a consequence not only of the description WHAT we watch, but also of the *DOMAIN - in which we count the replies.*Extend/shrink the borders and the end-result will change.
*Logical?* of course we mean HUMAN logic. The ways we get along in the limited model of our so far acquired perceived reality of the world - OUR WAY.* I wonder if you presume the Universal Computer to cover a wider knowledge-base than our present limitations and apply different ways of drawing conclusions from those rules in (your) logical studies?* One more of my 'beefs': Our rules (including: physical LAWS) are observational (statistical?) deductions in human knowledge. They *CONTROL - or INSTIGATE* nothing. They are descriptions of what we think is going on, paraphrased in our - mostly math-involving - human-logical (conventional?) sciences. We don't know how our figments (e.g. EM) RELATE to the natural change to which we think is related to. We have no DIRECT input of the RELATIONS in nature that control(?) the changes - the perception of which we receive in some human idea. It is a reverse view between 'physical law' and what we consider as happenings. Not even a description. We can calculate in many cases by those 'rules' and *MAY* get right answers (predictions) - our technology is ALMOST good. (Some mishaps still occur and if you state a 'match' to the 16th decimal, go to units in an order of magnitude 17 places to the right and you have no match even in integers.) Best regards John Mikes On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Mindey <min...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 00:13, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > >> On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true >> enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant >> questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from? >> >> > 1. Anything more than "Nothingness" requires explanation of its own > existence.[1] > 2. Very simple programs can be Universal Turing Machines. An example of > one: [2] > > => One of the very simple programs must have somehow originated from > Nothingness. > > But How? [3] > > > [1] Roger Ellman, "How and Why the Universe Began") > http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9904/9904054.pdf) > > [2] Alex Smith, "Universality of Wolfram’s 2, 3 Turing Machine" ( > http://www.wolframscience.com/prizes/tm23/TM23Proof.pdf) > > [3] Stephen Anastasi "On first cause" ( > http://cosmogonycentral.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-first-cause.html) > > >> >> You are the one assuming some physical reality. But mechanism can explains >> where such physical rules come from. They are consequences of addition and >> multiplication. More exactly, their *appearances* for the average >> universal machine are consequences of 0, +, and *. >> >> >> >> Dear Bruno, >> >> Could you give us a sketch of exactly how 'physical rules' or the >> appearance thereof are the "consequences of 0, + and *"? I think that there >> is more to the explanation than the fact that 0, + and * exist.... This is >> the part of your work that I still do not understand. >> > Onward! Stephen >> >> How are they >> enforced? Why would there be a difference between simple and complex >> to begin with and what makes one lead to the other but not the other >> way around? >> >> >> >> >> They are all statically, but logically related. >> >> Also, why do you make that argument, given that you seem to take for >> granted electromagnetism, that is Maxwell laws? >> >> >> 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 at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Mindaugas Indriūnas > E-mail: min...@gmail.com > Personal homepage: http://mindey.com > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
