On 01 Nov 2012, at 22:34, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/1/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:Dear Bruno,Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain","solve", "interacting" and " emulating", mean in an atemporalsetting? You are mixing temporal and atemporal ideas. ...Study a good book in theoretical computer science. You told me thatyou have the book by Matiyazevich. he does explicitly emulateTuring machine, which have a quite physical look, with a movinghead, and obeying instruction is a temporal manner, and yet theycan be shown to be emulated by a the existence or non existence ofsolution of Diophantine equations.Dear Bruno,That book, full of wonderful words and equations, is a physicalobject.

True, but non relevant.

That physical object is, in my thinking, an example of animplementation of the "emulation of a Turing Machine..." just as theimage on my TV of Rainbow Dash and her friends is a physicalimplementation of magical Ponies. You seem to ignore the obvious...

`You assume physical objects, but this contradict your own theory (on`

`which you point to, but without ever giving it).`

But this is already no more an enigma for many physicists whichagree that temporality is just an illusion resulting fromprojection from higher dimension.Those physicists are wrong in their belief. This is argued wellin this paper http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9708055 and in any otherplaces. I recall a long chat that I had with Julian Barbor. In it Itried to ask him about the computational complexity of implementinghis 'time capsule' and 'best matching' ideas, he seemed to notunderstand what the heck I was talking about and yet bemoaned thevery problem at length in one of his papers on the idea!From pg 52 of http://www.platonia.com/barbour_hrp2003.pdf "About ten years ago, I did some computer calculations to find suchconfigurations with the Macintosh computer I then possessed. I wasable todo exhaustive calculations up to N = 27, which took the computerabout threedays. Because the number of combinations that must be checked outgrowsexponentially with N, even with a modern supercomputer I doubt that calculations much beyond N = 50 would be feasible."BTW, it was reading this paper that opened my eyes to the NP-Hardproblem of Leibniz' Pre-Established Harmony.I thought you agree that physics (and thus time) is not primitive.I agree, physics (and all that it such as particles, forces,matter, energy) impels cannot be ontologically primitive. But itmust exist nonetheless. My challenge is showing how. I start with anotion of a property neutral "totality of all that exists"

`But what exists has properties, and besides, we don't know what exists`

`(beside our consciousness), so you take for granted much too much,`

`exactly what we have to explain.`

and consider how from that ground two aspects emerge simultaneously,the physical and the mental as mutually distinct dual aspects thatwhen added together yield back the neutrality. This idea is verysimilar to Russell Standish's Theory of Nothing.

I have no clue what you mean.

This means that they can and need to be explain from non temporalnotion.Arithmetic is the bloc mindspace.Is it a Singleton?

No.

Can it be exactly represented by a Boolean Algebra?

Yes.

I see 'mindspace" as one half of the dual aspects.

`You pretend to see a flaw. I am not interested in your "theory". You`

`have to work in the theory you are criticizing, to find the flaw in`

`that theory. If not you are like someone pretending that abelian group`

`are ridiculous as you know a non abelian group. Use comp, without`

`adding any other axioms, please.`

There is nothing more dynamical than the notion of computations,yet, they have been discovered in statical math structure.Mathematical objects are the epitome of static objects. I thinkthat this view of math is blinkered. A description of a dynamicprocess may be static, but the evolutionaly Becoming aspect is stillthere, just hidden. Just as a photograph acts to freeze a moment intime...

`So you assume a primitive time. This contradicts your "theory" (the`

`few I ahve grasped, but which becomes more and more confused, when you`

`try to escape some comp's consequence, for reason which eludes me, as`

`in some post you seem to have agreed with them.`

This is made possible as the statical sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ...reintroduces a lot of quasi-time notion, and it is explained howsome of them will play the role of the "observable timing ofevents" locally, by relative numbers.This is where you make the mistake. You are assuming that theordering of numbers *is* the dynamic.

No.

I claim that the ordering of numbers *is a representation* of thedynamic.

It can be. But the confusion is not made in comp, or in my posts.

We should be very careful when we identify the map with theterritory! I agree that there are situations when there is an exactisomorphism between map and territory, but that is only in the caseof automorphisms and fixed points.We can use sequences of relative numbers, surely, but only whenthe conditions to define them occur.

`This makes no sense. It leads directly to infinite regress, as the`

`condition will usually be much more complex than the definition of the`

`numbers. You are asking to the centipede to understand how its brain`

`and legs function before walking.`

We cannot assume that the properties of relative numbers exist inthe absence of the means to define the "timing", "locality" and"relations" required.

`Then give me your theory of numbers. And make sure it is simpler than`

`the first order usual arithmetical theories. Good luck ...`

Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.