On 9/19/2012 2:39 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Bruno,## Advertising

Your remarks raise an interesting question: Could it be that boththe object and the means to generate (or perceive) it are of equalimportance ontologically?Yes. It comes from the embedding of the subject in the objects, thatany monist theory has to do somehow.In computer science, the "universal" (in the sense of Turing)association i -> phi_i, transforms N into an applicative algebra. Thenumbers are both perceivers and perceived according of their place xand y in the relation of phi_x(y).You can define the applicative operation by x # y = phi_x(y). Thecombinators are not far away from this, and provides intensional andextensional models.I remind you that phi_i represent the ith computable function in someeffective universal enumeration of the partial computable functions.You can take LISP, or c++ to fix the things.Bruno

Dear Bruno,

`You are highlighting of the key property of a number, that it can`

`both represent itself and some other number. My question becomes, how`

`does one track the difference between these representations? You speak`

`of measures, but I have never seen how relative measures are discussed`

`or defined in modal logic. It seems to me that if we have the`

`possibility of a Godel numbering scheme on the integers, then we lose`

`the ability to define a global index set on subsets of those integers`

`unless we can somehow call upon something that is not a number and thus`

`not directly representable by a number..`

-- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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.