On 20 Oct 2012, at 19:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 3:29:39 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 17:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:16:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Two men and two women live together. The woman has a child. 2+2=5
You mean two men + two women + a baby = five persons.
You need the arithmetical 2+2=4, and 4+1 = 5, in your "argument".
Bruno
I only see that one person plus another person can eventually equal
three or more people.
With the operation of sexual reproduction, not by the operation of
addition.
Only if you consider the 2+2=5 to be a complex special case and
2+2=4 to be a simple general rule.
2+2 = 5 is not a special case of 2+2=4.
It could just as easily be flipped.
Errors are possible pour complex subjects.
I can say 2+2=4 by the operation of reflexive neurology, and 2+2=5
is an operation of multiplication. It depends on what level of
description you privilege by over-signifying and the consequence
that has on the other levels which are under-signified. To me, the
Bruno view is near-sighted when it comes to physics (only sees
numbers, substance is disqualified)
It means that you think that there is a flaw in UDA, as the non
materiality of physics is a consequence of the comp hypothesis. There
is no choice in the matter (pun included).
and far-sighted when it comes to numbers (does not question the
autonomy of numbers).
Because computer science explains in details how number can be
autonomous, or less simplified: how arithmetical realization can
generate the beliefs in bodies, relative autonomy, etc. You seem to
want to ignore the computer science behind the comp hypothesis.
What is it that can tell one number from another?
It is not simple to prove, but the laws of addition and multiplication
is enough. I am not sanguine on numbers, I can take fortran programs
in place, with the same explanation for the origin of the
consciousness/realities couplings.
What knows that + is different from * and how?
Because we know the definition, and practice first order logical
language. Everything I say is a theorem in the theory:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
Why doesn't arithmetic truth need a meta-arithmetic machine to allow
it to function (to generate the ontology of 'function' in the first
place)?
It does not. That's the amazing whole theoretical computer science
point. The meta-arithmetic is already a consequence of the four laws
above.
Bruno
It's all sense. It has to be sense.
It depends when you start counting and how long it takes you to
finish.
It depends on what we are talking about. Person with sex is not
numbers with addition.
You are just changing definition, not invalidating a proof (the
proof that 2+2=4, in arithmetic).
I'm not trying to invalidate the proof within one context of sense,
I'm pointing out that it isn't that simple. There are other contexts
of sense which reduce differently.
Craig
Bruno
Craig
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/QjkYW9tKq6EJ
.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ma4il48CDGAJ
.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
