Dear Bruno: here we go again (quote from Ronald Reagan).
The "vocabulary" of different (belief?) systems. You seem to abide firmly
at "axioms", meaning not more in MY vocabulary than postulates to make *OUR
*(actual, conventional, ongoing) theories VALID. Changing theories make
axioms invalid.

*HUMAN? *I doubt if we have a universally agreed-upon definition
(and please, count me into the 'universal) standing up to both
'living/nonliving' creatures, computers (as we knew them yesterday -
including the skeletally composed AI)  with all the potentials that can be
filled in future, additionally, as it has been supplied in the past
millennia. Mathematical logic is IMO a human achievement of yesterday. It
is fine and supports our conventional sciences (more than usually presumed
so) but not the 'total' of an infinite view. (What I do not have).
You may say: un-scientific, baseless, etc., I agree.
What I disagree about is a "firm" belief of "we know it all".
Not even 1+1=2. Hence my joke of 1+1=11. Or Brent's 10.
I claim: there are no numbers in Nature, it is us (allow me to call
ourselves: 'humans') representing observations of 'natural' hints with
their ongoing explanations into "number"-related (calculable?)
formulations. Hence (our?) arithmetic.

As I already explained: the (human) genius formulated out of such theories
an ingenious technology that is ALMOST good.
And I bow to that.

John M
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:45 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bruno:
> *"Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2 are
> just imagining something else."*  -
>  do you mean: "imagining something else
> THAN WHAT YOU WERE *IMAGINING*?" sounds like a claim to some priviledge
> to imagining - only YOUR WAY?
> (I know you will vehemently deny that - ha ha).
>
> To Guitarist:
>  *"It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
> stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11"*
> You made my point - which was to (agnostically) expose that we have no
> approved authority to a ONE AND ONLY opinion.
> Not even within what we may call 'possible'.
>
> John M
>  * *
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guitar boy,
>>
>>  On 04 Jul 2012, at 16:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>> Hello Everythinglisters,
>>
>> First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions from
>> time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more musical tendency.
>>
>> It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do stuff
>> like: 1 + 1 = 11
>>
>> If people are sincere about pulling whatever sums they feel like with
>> personal justification, then we might as well say 1 + 1 = 0, with a kind of
>> zen logic, where everything = nothing as a fancy justification.
>>
>>
>> Well in Z_2 = {0, 1}, we do have a law with 1+1 = 0. (modular
>> arithmetic). But 1 is still different from 0. But I get your point.
>>
>>
>> And anybody still willing to assert this could post their bank account
>> details and pin numbers and be freed from arithmetic dictatorship by having
>> their account cleaned out by other everything listers that DO believe in
>> sums, successors etc. as 0 = whatever they want, and the sum of their
>> balance doesn't really matter, as it's only some personal belief shared by
>> a few control freaks.
>>
>>
>> Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2 are
>> just imagining something else. It is not an arguent that a truth is not
>> absolute, but that the notation used to described it can have other
>> interpreations. In the Z_2 structure, which plays a key role in many
>> places: 2 = 0. But 2 does not represent the successor of of the successor
>> of zero, it represents the rest when we divide by the usual number 2. It
>> really means:
>>
>> odd + odd = even   (the rest of 1 + 1 divided by 2 = 0)
>> even + even = even (the rest of 2 + 2 divided by 2 = 0)
>> odd + even = odd  (the rest of 1 + 2 divided by  2 = 1)
>>
>>
>>
>> Guitar and composition imho, have arithmetic overlap, albeit in a less
>> than total sense, which is why I won't have to post my details here :)
>>
>>
>> Guitar is hardest, imo. You need good trained digits!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to contributing from time to time.
>>
>>
>> You are welcome,
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:09:53 AM UTC+2, JohnM wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruno asked:
>>>   .....     Is that an absolute truth?
>>>
>>> By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY
>>> agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept better
>>> expressions.
>>> (Except for "absolute truth" - ha ha).
>>> And Teilhard was a great master of words.
>>> John M
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
>>>>
>>>> My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
>>>> We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever "WE"
>>>> accept is "human".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that an absolute truth?
>>>>
>>>> In my humble opinion, "WE = human" seems to me quite relative. When I
>>>> listen to the jumping spiders or the Löbian machines, most seems to
>>>> disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Bruno
>>>>
>>>> *We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are
>>>> spiritual beings having a human experience.*
>>>> (de Chardin).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  What is Mother Nature accepting?
>>>>
>>>> John M
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brent:
>>>>>> I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain
>>>>>> peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
>>>>>> So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more relatives.
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or less facetiously,  (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of
>>>>> Gennifer)=(One, me)  and  (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop).  
>>>>> So
>>>>> whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of arithmetic to
>>>>> your model.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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.**c*
>>>>> *om <everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**go**oglegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>>>> .
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group
>>>>> **/everything-list?hl=en<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<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>>> .
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/<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<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>>> .
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/aa8ElOQLmdwJ.
>> 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.
>>
>
>

-- 
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