On 10/31/2012 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
How do you explain the communicability of the meaning of these
This is ambiguous.
It can mean "what does that mean?". In which case I refer you to the
explanation already give, notably recently on FOR. You can also
Or you mean: 'how do you explain in the comp theory how 1-meaning
arise for such propositions'.
Well by comp the understanding (meaningful) is a complex computation
made in a brain. But a brain, when described digitally at the comp
subst level, appears to be a (Löbian) universal number. He get the
meaning by doing the right computations, which exists by the comp
How? OK, that is an interesting and still different question,
partially solved, but containing also a part which cannot be solved,
yet can be explained, by the universal Löbian number concerned, as
being impossible to explain. The qualia aspect of any understanding is
treated by the X1* logic (the qualia logic).
You have written words like "sharable". Is that the explanation? How
does it work?
It works through the universal reality supporting population of
interacting universal numbers. Think of a program emulating the entire
Milky Way, at the level of strings, defined on some fields. The UD,
notably, dovetails on that.
The quantum aspect comes from the fact that an infinity of universal
numbers dovetail on that, and on all variants.
Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain",
"solve", "interacting" and " emulating", mean in an atemporal setting?
You are mixing temporal and atemporal ideas. ...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at