On 27 May 2012, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote:

Thanks, Brent and Bruno. You are kind to respond.
The point I wanted to approach (far approach, indeed) is that whatever we derive (mentally) about Nature comes from our human mind, be it binary or not.

We don't know that. We believe that.
I might be a butterfly only dreaming that he is human.
I might be an amnesic God, just playing to himself that he is a human.

Nor do we know if something like Nature exist.

We do know that we are conscious, but not much more. We believe more, and that's OK, if we grant that those are beliefs, which means that we are aware that they might be wrong.



And: it is not BINDING (restricting?) upon Nature, there may be more we cannot even imagine within our limited capabilities.

And here computationalism, the theory or hypothesis, makes it possible to say more, like the fact that Nature is necessarily, in that theory, a sort of surface emerging from the vaster volume of a sort of mind, itself emerging in a precise way from arithmetic or alike.



We think in our 'model of knowables' and it is incredible how far we got.

Except that I can argue that if COMP is true, then we have regressed since +500. We have made some progress in technology, and even, I think, in politics (at least conceptually), but we have transformed science into religion, and religion into superstition. As long as we oppose mysticism and rationalism, we can only regress. We are hiding the data since 1500 years. Modernity has existed from -500 to +500, in some limited circle. Since then we are in the obscurantist era. The most fundamental science, theology, is still abandoned to authoritarians.


A figment of a physical world, an 'almost' perfect technology with a reductionist (conventional) science and I don't even mention: math.

I read your discussions with awe and keep my agnostic indeterminism.

That is the genuine scientific attitude.

Bruno



JohnM




On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/26/2012 9:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:

Brent wrote:

1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable things would be true of reality.

Just to be clear, I didn't write 1. above.  But I did write 2. below.



2. Does arithmetic have 'finite information content'? Is the axiom of succession just one or is it a schema of infinitely many axioms?

Appreciable, even in layman's logic.

In '#1' - I question "provable" since in my agnosticism an 'evidence' is partial only, leaving open lots of (so far?) unknown/ able aspects to be covered. In the infinity(?) of the "world" also the contrary of an evidence may be 'true'.

As Bruno said, "Provable is always relative to some axioms and rules of inference. It is quite independent of "true of reality". Which is why I'm highly suspicious of ideas like deriving all of reality from arithmetic, which we know only from axioms and inferences.



#2 is a technically precise formulation of what I tried to express in my post to Bruno. IFF!!! "anything" (i.e. everything) can be expressed by numerals, the information included into arithmetic IS infinite,

I see no reason to suppose that. Everything ever expressed so far has been done with a finite part of arithmetic. Assuming every integer has a successor is just a convenience for modeling things; you don't have to worry about running out of counters. There is a book "Ad Infinitum, The Ghost in Turing's Machine" by Rotman that proposes what he calls "non-euclidean arithmetic" which does not assume the integers are infinite. I can't really recommend the book because most of it is written in the style of French deconstructionist philosophy, but the Appendix has some interesting ideas.


however as it seems: in our (restricted) view of "the world" (Nature?) there seem to be NO numbers to begin with. In our human 'translation' we see 1,2, or 145, or a million "OF SOMETHING" - no the (integer?) numerals.

Axioms? in my vocabulary: imagined things, necessary for certain theories we cannot substantiate otherwise.

Axioms are just part of a logical, i.e. self-consistent, system. Mathematicians don't even care if they are "true of reality". They may or may not refer to imagined things; they are just assumed true for some inferences. I could take "I am typing on a keyboard" as an axiom, which I also happen to think is true, or I could take "I am a projection in a Hilbert space" which might be true, but is much more dubious.


In another logic than human, in another figment of a "physical world" different axioms would serve science.

Logic is about the relations of propositions, statements in language. Humans already have invented different logics.


2+2=4? not necessarily in the (fictitious) "octimality" of the '[Zarathustran' aliens in the Cohen-Stewart books
(still product of human minds).

2+2=11

Brent
"The world consists of 10 kinds of people. Those who think in binary and those who don't.



--
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