On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand this,
even if there is some genuine analogy.
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0,
+, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of numbers’,
interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.
One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a self-dividing
continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics between eidetic dream
states (in which dream~numbers escape their numerical identities as
immersive qualitative experiences) and entopic non-dream states (in
which number~dreams escape their dream nature as literal
The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They dream
by encoding computational state of person, relatively to some
universal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively to
some other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary. Those are
not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like the genome
if you want.
Could you elaborate as to how you explain the means by which an
encoding (which is an equivalence relation of sorts between one set and
another) is a generative action such that dreams obtain? I would very
much like to better understand how you obtain the appearance of chance
from purely static relations. I ask this as I simply do not see how you
can claim to explain actions in terms of purely non-active relations.
Craig's ideas assume activity at a primitive level and thus puts his
considerations at odds with yours in an almost irreconcilable way.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at