On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
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 algebra-geometries).
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
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 be
manifested 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 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*,
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.
"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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at