On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,

On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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 algebra-geometries).

I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand this, even if there is some genuine analogy.

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.

Dear Bruno,

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 work in the comp theory, so I postulate that consciousness can be manifested through a computation.



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.

There are different form of chance. A "real randomness" is given by the first person indeterminacy bearing on all computation (aka UD*, AKA arithmetic). Yes, Craig's theory is non-comp. I suspect more and more that you defend also non-comp, but unlike Craig, you seem to want to deny this.

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.

Reply via email to