# Re: Communicability

```
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:```
```
```
```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.
```
```Dear Bruno,

```
How do you explain the communicability of the meaning of these axioms?
```
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 consult textbook.
```
```
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 hypothesis.
```
```
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.
```
Bruno

```
```Dear Bruno,

```
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. ...
```
```
Study a good book in theoretical computer science. You told me that you have the book by Matiyazevich. he does explicitly emulate Turing machine, which have a quite physical look, with a moving head, and obeying instruction is a temporal manner, and yet they can be shown to be emulated by a the existence or non existence of solution of Diophantine equations.
```
```
But this is already no more an enigma for many physicists which agree that temporality is just an illusion resulting from projection from higher dimension.
```
```
I thought you agree that physics (and thus time) is not primitive. This means that they can and need to be explain from non temporal notion.
```
```
Arithmetic is the bloc mindspace. There is nothing more dynamical than the notion of computations, yet, they have been discovered in statical math structure. This is made possible as the statical sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ... reintroduces a lot of quasi-time notion, and it is explained how some of them will play the role of the "observable timing of events" locally, by relative numbers.
```
Bruno

```
```
--
Onward!

Stephen

--
```
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 .
```
```
```
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to