On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

## Advertising

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 ofnumbers’, interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents aself-dividing continuum of infinite perpendicular dialecticsbetween eidetic dream states (in which dream~numbers escape theirnumerical identities as immersive qualitative experiences) andentopic non-dream states (in which number~dreams escape their dreamnature 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 dreamby encoding computational state of person, relatively to someuniversal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively tosome other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary. Thoseare not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like thegenome if you want.Dear Bruno,Could you elaborate as to how you explain the means by which anencoding (which is an equivalence relation of sorts between one setand another)?

How do you define "encoding"? What kind of mathematical entity is it?

is a generative action such that dreams obtain?I work in the comp theory, so I postulate that consciousness can bemanifested through a computation.

`I am thinking that the my self-simulation idea of identity requires`

`this, so we agree a tiny bit. I do define computations as *any*`

`transformation of information and information I define as "a difference`

`between two that makes a difference to a third".`

I would very much like to better understand how you obtain theappearance of chance from purely static relations. I ask this as Isimply do not see how you can claim to explain actions in terms ofpurely non-active relations. Craig's ideas assume activity at aprimitive level and thus puts his considerations at odds with yoursin an almost irreconcilable way.There are different form of chance. A "real randomness" is given bythe first person indeterminacy bearing on all computation (aka UD*,AKA arithmetic).Yes, Craig's theory is non-comp. I suspect more and more that youdefend also non-comp, but unlike Craig, you seem to want to deny this.Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- Onward! Stephen "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 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.