On 25 Mar 2013, at 12:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I mean:ultimately the aestetic pleasure of Math derives from the naturalimpulse to search for efficient algoritms useful for deduction

`Hmm.... The algorithmic is something both old and new, but it`

`constitutes a little part of math. Theoretical computer science`

`already shows that machines behavior is far beyond the algorithmic. it`

`is easy to find a solution of a diophantine equation (when you have`

`the time), but it can be a matter of extreme complexity to show that`

`there are no solutions, and this can need quite amazing mathematical`

`discoveries.`

Mathematics is the study of the mathematical reality.

`With comp, you are free to describe the entire mathematical reality as`

`arithmetic, with all the rest belonging to the number's mindscape. It`

`is real and lawful too, and with comp, it can be shown bigger than any`

`formalizable part of the mathematical reality.`

`With comp it is absolutely undecidable if reality is bigger than`

`arithmetic.`

`Arithmetic, seen from inside, that is from the numbers perspective, is`

`already beyond mathematics.`

`But not beyond theology. I would say this by definition of theology`

`(you can see it as a theory of everything, from electron to the Mother`

`of God, and Who know What, or don't know What ...).`

Bruno

2013/3/25 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> I don´t know what Math is.If math is all that is free from contradictions and can be expressedusing the language of mathematics, then any description at any levelcan be math. For example the set of positions and speeds of theparticles of a piece of dirt.That description has nothing pure to stare at...I suspect that there must be more in the description to beintuitively called mathematic: short descriptions with generalproperties applicable to a wide set of different phenomena, whetherthe descriptions are in some mathematical formalism or not. I thinkthat the concept of math can be subsumed in this last, slightlywider, definition.That definition is directly related with kolmogorov complexity andSolomonof inductive inference. ultimately the aestetic pleasure ofMath derives from the natural impulse to search for efficientalgoritms useful for induction, something that a living being do allthe time at some basic levels with prefixed algorithms, and humansdo at the rational level with their models.I suspect that the pleasure that these short descriptions widelyapplicable inspire in the one that aprehend them derives directlyfrom their value as tools to find regularities in the world so thatit becomes more predictable.2013/3/24 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>“The things that fascinate me the most about mathematics are logicalthought and the great importance attached to the correctness ofpropositions. Every step made during calculations is conclusive andmathematicians don’t like to make false statements. This is thereason why people from this particular domain contemplate longerbefore they respond to questions. Recently I read a sentence in abook which summarizes all this fascinating stuff to me succinctly:‘Mathematics is the purest form of thought.’”— Barbara Meier (via dauphinexvx)This is an interesting observation, and I don’t disagree thatmathematics is the purest form of thought, but what is thought?While we are at it, what is a form?In the first case, I have proposed that thought is meta-feeling. Itis a kind of trick within the interplay of intention and feeling toestablish a generalized neutral feeling which can be used like avariable in algebra. A feeling like “I am angry and sad because atiger ate my kids, but relieved that it was only a dream” can sortof look at itself from a distance and strike all kinds of otherthought-like sparks. We can feel fear that dream was a premonition.We can feel motivated to hunt tigers. These need not be thoughts,but emotive dispositions. They don’t entail any awareness about ourstate or our actions, only a desire for this or that response to afelt condition.The feeling need not be connected to a real event or a particularevent, but as we go up the ladder of meta-abstraction, the absenceof immersive personal feeling is replaced by formality and clarity.It is an echo of decoherence, as the living wave of direct feeling‘collapses’ into a thermodynamically unambiguous state, the flow ofparticipation is deferred into analytical hindsight and strategicforesight.On some level, it as if we are picking up the stylus from theuniversal record and holding onto it while we deliberate ouroptions. Thought is born, in my view, as this kind of deferred metaentanglement…a feeling that is whipped up into a frothy foam whereit can be used to the sculpt air - turning absence into a virtualpresence through surface tension alone. The thought bubble ishypothesis, and the ultimate thought bubble is Mathematics becauseit seeks only to distill itself into its own purest form. It is,however, still a form. There is still a thinker thinking thethoughts, and the thoughts are still feelings of a living person,but these facts are hidden from view within the mathematicalcontext. The pretense is toward a universal objectivity.Indeed, it is not incorrect to say that ‘mathematics is the languageof the universe’, iff you define the universe to begin with as thoseforms which can be publicly observed. In my view then, it is reallytautological to say that mathematics is the purest form of thought,since mathematics is only the thought of purest forms. What then,are forms?There are many ways to approach such a general term as form, but Iprefer the underlying sense which is shared with formality. Apresented shape, yes, but more like the logical essence of apresented shape. It is a presentation of coherent qualities;stability and regularity, reducibility to simpler, universal sub-forms, etc. Mathematics explores this aspect of the universe whileeschewing and denying all phenomena which seems exempt from form.All things spontaneous and erratic, non-reducible and proprietaryare treated poorly. Emotions, free will, and the “I” to whom theybelong are not merely pushed to the back of the bus, but they arepushed out the back door of the bus, to be paved over by the steamroller in hot pursuit.I sympathize with people who are unable to conceive of a concretelyreal phenomenon which generates form intentionally rather than isdefined by it, but it is harder to be sympathetic when thisdisability is compounded by the unwillingness to allow that it canbe conceived. In my thousands of hours arguing with STEM-mindedpeople online I have found an overwhelming bias against certainkinds of ideas and laughable acceptance of others. Ridiculouslygrand abstractions like MWI, or replacing every atom in a humanbrain roll off of the tongue easily, while ordinary terms like freewill are brought under Torquemadan hyper-scrutiny. The doublestandard is tremendous, yet invisible to those who subscribe to it.Physics can be as counter-intuitive and unexplainable as it wants tobe, but if you bring up intuition itself, then be prepared to hear alot of ‘simply’ this and ‘merely’ that.The good news though, is that through mathematical principles likesymmetry, we can move beyond these blind alleys. By applying all ofwhat we know about the public world, its forms and formulations inreverse we can find where the private world of physics begins - notwith numbers, but with names; not with abstract thoughts but withsensory experience. To be a living participant in a meaningfuluniverse is to eventually put the stylus down somewhere and let themusic play.The second post is shorter but it has pictures, so probably betterto just link it: http://s33light.org/post/46154550763 It's aboutTupper's Self-Referential Formula--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.