Hi Karl, On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:23, Karl Javorszky wrote:
> As Bob said experiences -> words. Wittgenstein said words -> > numbers. Pythagoras: world -> numbers. Idea: organise numbers like > you organise words and see the world. > Question from Stan: experience <-> number ?. > Answer: > Like in Bobs analogy: water as a recognisable, recurring experience, > sufficiently interpersonal to be consistently named and understood > that this is what was meant by "water". In our case, we have to > communicate recognisable, recurring expriences that relate to mental > products that are thought. The brain experiences by the sensory > organs differently than by thinking. Feelings that arise on > thoughts, rather than on sensual experiences, can also be > circumscribed. This will happen in an abstract way. The audience is > invited to recognise a pattern of patterns. These can be > communicated by ponting to a table and saying "such is the place > here and then", these statements being numbers. One may want to be > perceptive to the experience that a point in space and a load on > this point can be directly read out of the natural numbers. We are > presently learning the common, unifying experience that a table - > slightly more complicated than a multiplication table - delivers > exact data on "what is where and when". Therefrom, one will be > accessing a logical experience of "order". Like the physiological > experience "water" has got a common name, the cultural invention is > now to give the name "order" to a way of reading the contents of a > table that makes the concept explicable to all. > This is the stage we are at now. > As to the sufficient number of noumena - see Gordana - as compared > to that of words used by traditional languages: we are at learning > to give names to experiences, and the experiences themselves are not > yet universally connected to such an interpretation of numbers which > allows saying "this experience is commonly shared and is called", > e.g., 'order', or 'future' or 'space-mass-time stitch-up by standard > place changes'. > There is by far enough of numbers to represent all that could have > ever been said. In fact one needs rather only a few of the numbers. > It is mostly combinatorics, and Nature makes do with 3 places and 4 > markers to convey the message. One can simulate genetics in a crude > way by using twice 16 elements. Their relations are very intricate. > They deserve a closer look. There, one can experience that feeling > of order about which a rational dialogue is possible. > > Bruno: non-computability is true > The physical facts must lie within the nature of the numbers. The > perception by the human is where the information is added: aha, this > relation means that such-and-such will be that way. The content is > in the numbers, and is not computational. It is indeed us that have > to understand the movement of the elements by applying to the set of > beliefs that are based on a+b=c the idea of an ordered assembly. > Both the correctness of the addition and the position under a given > order are included in the properties of the numbers, they need not > be comnputed. They need to be recognised, not computed. Then, one > may talk about conflict caused by diverging ideas of order, and be > sure that others understand him. I was relying on the fact that if we assume computationalism (the Turing emulability of the brain), our computational states are distributed on the infinitely many computations, existing in the arithmetic, going through our state, and this makes the physics, below our computationalist substitution level, arising from a statistics on all those computations. The math confirms that we find something quite close to quantum mechanics. It makes also the physical reality into an emergent, NON entirely computable pattern. That approach has another key feature: it justifies the existence of non sharable qualia. Indeed quanta are recovered by the notion of sharable, first person plural, qualia. This provides also an arithmetical interpretation of Platonist conception of reality, notably Plotinus primary hypostases, and his two matters theory (inspired by Aristotle, but corrected for keeping Platonism). The physical reality is the border of something else. If we are digitalisable machine, physics is no more a fundamental science, and the laws of physics are due to an evolving structure in a logico- arithmetical reality, seen from "inside" (in a precise mathematical sense). This approach prevents also biology, psychology, and theology, from reductionism. The notion of persons plays a capital role, and the first person points view are not third person mechanical entities, which assess your point. You can find papers on this in my URL. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
