(Msg from Karl J.)
Hi Bruno,
in the contents - as to what ends cave-dwellers can use natural numbers,
which, after all, they themselves have thought up - we seem to agree.
We can reformulate in our generation's language the same questions that
have been asked since times archaic. If the answers illuminate new
segments of the cave of Platon, doings so annoys the slumbering and the
night fauna, causing unpleasantness all around. One has accomodated and
is used to and comfortable with the play of shadow and light in the
cave. The resistance has natural reasons, and good arguments, too.
Has our exchange been posted on the fis list? To me it appears not. Then
this would be a sign of the validity of our theory: that revolutions -
big sparks - are not easy to inflame.
Friendly:
Karl
2012/1/20 Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 19 Jan 2012, at 12:55, Karl Javorszky wrote:
Bruno:
Theories needs theories do be interpreted, except that we must
start from simple agreements, on elementary arithmetic for
example, to exploit that direction.
End Bruno Begin Karl
Also, we need an agreement what to concentrate on while the
communication is made. We have agreed to use elementary
arithmetic as carriers of meaning, because everyone understands
these.
I am glad you say so. It is deep mystery though, but I have never
met people who does not understand natural numbers and the addition
and multiplication laws, and indeed it is what we need to even say
"I don't understand something". As a logician I can explain,
nevertheless, why we can't explain what are numbers from anything
simpler.
Of course I often meet philosophers who pretend, I think, to not
understand them, but they usually put more on them than we need to
do, and confuse the numbers with the human conception of them.
What we keep in our abstract hands is now clear. Now comes the
dynamic part: we sort them and resort them and watch how these move.
If we had some entrepreneurs here, we could have a nice graphic
drawn: like camels building a caravane, the convoys moving
together. I would like to know how many of the FIS work in
environments, where logistics and housekeeping is of importance,
like a warehouse manager or a HR professional. In the business
life, people do have experience and practice with flows of mass
thru spatially and temporally fixed "points".
The unit of {change | transfer | dynamism} that can be
stipulated over systems of logistics overall can now be
discussed in an abstract fashion, where every word has a clear
meaning. The concept of "goods in transit" can be introduced by
the sorting-resorting method.
There is indeed much darkness in the cave. Maybe some incendiary
comments could set a sparkling discussion and illuminate a torch
in light of which we see the entertaintment on long evenings
among the dwellers: let us think up some moving objects and move
them.
End Karl
I have already tried to make an incendiary comment, but I don't want
insist too much. It requires diplomacy and some human skills, which
I might be lacking.
I am studying the consequence of the hypothesis that the brain (even
in a very weak generalized sense) works like a digital universal
machine, or that my consciousness might be invariant for some
digital self-transformation of my body.
I can argue in detail that this is enough to make wrong the whole
Aristotelian Naturalistic tradition (often believed by Christians
and their atheists variants).
Mechanism, when considered close enough, seems to lead us back to
Platonism, where the physical world is no more what "really exist",
but is an appearance only, like being the border of some universal
mind, which might just be the mind of the universal machine (in the
theoretical computer scientist sense of relative number).
The proof of this that I provide is constructive. It does not let
any choice on the manner to derive physics from arithmetic and
self-reference logic, and so it makes the mechanist hypothesis
refutable. Indeed this can be done by deriving physics from number's
beliefs (defined axiomatically) and comparing such laws of physics
(observation) with what we infer from empiric observation.
If you are interested I wrote some papers and some of them are
accessible from my URL. Unfortunately I have discovered that some
scientist take as a fact the existence of a *primitive* physical
reality, which I think is erroneous, and comes from a 1500 years old
tradition to put the mind under the rug.
I hope this is "incendiary" enough :). I assure you that it looks
like it might be rather incendiary, at least for some dogmatic
materialist. I am just taking mechanism very seriously, and I show
how mechanism necessarily reduces constructively the mind-body
problem partially into a "belief in a body" problem in pure
arithmetic/mathematical computer science.
Best,
Bruno Marchal
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
[email protected]
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
