On 07 Jul 2012, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno: here we go again (quote from Ronald Reagan).
The vocabulary of different (belief?) systems. You seem to abide
firmly at axioms, meaning not more in MY vocabulary than
postulates to make OUR (actual, conventional, ongoing) theories
VALID. Changing theories make axioms invalid.
HUMAN? I doubt if we have a universally agreed-upon definition
(and please, count me into the 'universal) standing up to both
'living/nonliving' creatures, computers (as we knew them yesterday -
including the skeletally composed AI) with all the potentials that
can be filled in future, additionally, as it has been supplied in
the past millennia. Mathematical logic is IMO a human achievement of
yesterday. It is fine and supports our conventional sciences (more
than usually presumed so) but not the 'total' of an infinite view.
(What I do not have).
You may say: un-scientific, baseless, etc., I agree.
What I disagree about is a firm belief of we know it all.
I can' agree more with this.
Not even 1+1=2.
But that is not all. We don't know it, perhaps. But we believe it very
strongly and use it daily, and it does not mean anything to say that
we doubt it. It looks like provocative for the pleasure.
Hence my joke of 1+1=11. Or Brent's 10.
Yes, a joke. I am glad you make this clear.
I claim: there are no numbers in Nature, it is us (allow me to call
ourselves: 'humans') representing observations of 'natural' hints
with their ongoing explanations into number-related (calculable?)
formulations. Hence (our?) arithmetic.
Here I do not follow you. I am more confident in the elementary
arithmetical proposition than on any sentences involving humans, which
are much more abstract and complex entities.
Actually, I don't really believe in human. By we I tend to mean
all Löbian relative numbers, and this, on this planet, might start
from the jumping spiders. I still respect a lot the lesser animal
from bacteria to worms like my pet the planarians.
You say that there are no numbers in Nature. But is not Nature a human
conventional projection? I don't believe necessarily in Nature. It
looks like a fake God to me. But there is no problem with believing in
an even basic (ontological) Nature, but then my point is that you
might need to refuse the doctor proposition to get an artificial brain.
My point is logical. No theories can bring the numbers without
assuming them (implicitly or explicitly), and assuming comp we *have
to* entirely explain the illusion of nature from the numbers. Then
computer science shows that such an enterprise makes sense.
I am no saying that the comp theory is true, but it presents at least
a precise rational alternative to the Aristotelian naturalism, which
tend to eliminate person (human or not).
As I already explained: the (human) genius formulated out of such
theories an ingenious technology that is ALMOST good.
And I bow to that.
The difference between natural and artificial is artificial.
Technologies, like living entities can give the best and the worst,
and it is relative to what and who benefits from it.
Bruno
John M
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:45 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno:
Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2
are just imagining something else. -
do you mean: imagining something else
THAN WHAT YOU WERE IMAGINING? sounds like a claim to some
priviledge to imagining - only YOUR WAY?
(I know you will vehemently deny that - ha ha).
To Guitarist:
It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11
You made my point - which was to (agnostically) expose that we have
no approved authority to a ONE AND ONLY opinion.
Not even within what we may call 'possible'.
John M
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi Guitar boy,
On 04 Jul 2012, at 16:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hello Everythinglisters,
First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions
from time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more
musical tendency.
It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11
If people are sincere about pulling whatever sums they feel like
with personal justification, then we might as well say 1 + 1 = 0,
with a kind of zen logic, where everything = nothing as a fancy
justification.
Well in Z_2 = {0, 1}, we do have a law with 1+1 = 0. (modular
arithmetic). But 1 is still different from 0. But I get your point.
And anybody still willing to assert this could post their bank
account details and pin numbers and be freed from arithmetic
dictatorship by having their account cleaned out by other
everything listers that DO believe in sums, successors etc. as 0 =
whatever they want, and the sum of their balance doesn't really
matter, as it's only
