Dear John,

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.

I am not sure what you are saying here.




Logical? of course we mean HUMAN logic.

Why? I think it is the same for spiders and plants. It might be a HUMAN prejudice to believe that they have non human logic.
And why human? Why not mammalian, or verterbrates?

I like to think like de Chardin that we are not humans having from time to time divine experiences, but that we are divine beings having from time to time human experiences.




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?

We are just studying the universal consequences of being a locally finite entity. The kind of one who would survive with a digital brain. I am not saying that this is true, only that IF it is true, then the theology of Aristotle (used by atheists and christians notably) is not sustainable, but the one by Plato is.




One more of my 'beefs':
Our rules (including: physical LAWS) are observational (statistical?) deductions in human knowledge.

No more if we assume mechanism. The physical laws become theorems. They are deductible from the theology of numbers.




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.

Yes. That is why I think that observation can only refute a theory. It never prove anything, still less explain. Physics, by construction, does not attempt an explanation, only a compressed description. Like René Thom said: to predict is not to explain.



We don't know how our figments (e.g. EM) RELATE to the natural change to which we think is related to.

Science are collection of beliefs. Only God knows if such belief are knowledge or not. But we can always make theories/hypotheses, and reason from there. We never know if they are true or not. Just never.



We have no DIRECT input of the RELATIONS in nature that control(?) the changes - the perception of which we receive in some human idea.

This is highly dependent on the metaphysical or theological assumptions.


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.)

Sure. That is why I prefer to deduce from simple principles than to infer from observation, at least for the fundamental inquiries. Mechanism explains this very well: the physical universe is in our head, even in the head of any universal numbers. So we can program a machine to look inward and tell us what she see, and we can compare with nature, and perhaps, refute comp, or the classical theory of knowledge, or just that "I am awake".

Best,

Bruno



John Mikes wrote:

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.p df)

[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 .

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