Re: Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can bemonads. Cool.
Hi Bruno Marchal By universal numbers are you referring to the numbers as seen by Pythagoras ? I'm a little hesistant to get into that stuff or anything esoteric since becoming a Christian. There is a short video of these at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7AyNFpJ6DA [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 05:09:15 Subject: Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can bemonads. Cool. On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:57, Roger Clough wrote: Here's an additional observation-- Only the prime numbers can be monads, because all other integers can not be subdivided and still remain integers. Hmm... numbers are monad when seen as index of a partial computable function. the monad are the program, which you can see as a number relative to a universal number. Keep in mind I use comp (renamed CTM for Computationalist theory of Mind). Bruno Cool. - Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-07, 08:33:37 Subject: Fw: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers, whatever they be. - Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:36 Subject: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads Hi Bruno Marchal 1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's 1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God. 2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I thought that all monads had to refer to physical substances. But natural numbers are different because even though they are only mental substances, they're still substances, by virtue of the fact that they can't be subdivided. So they are of one part each. Thus the natural numbers are monads, even though they have no physical correlates. Sorry I've be so slow to see that. That reallyiopens doors Then numbers can see each other with 1p. WHOOPEE ! [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:44:46 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 05 Dec 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we can not code for [1p]. But we need not abandon itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive theory has done. On the contrary, I define it is a simple way (the owner of the diary) the the self-multiplication thought experiment (UDA). It is enough to understand that physics emerge from the way the numbers see themselves. But in the math part, I define it by using the fact that the incompleteness phenomenon redeemed the Theatetus definition. The Bp p definition. It is a bit technical. Don't worry. The 1p is the inner god, the first person, the knower, and it plays the key role for consciousness and matter. We can replace [1p] by its actions - those of perception, in which terms are relational (subject: object). You seem to deal with everything from the 3p perspective. That's science. But don't confuse the level. My object of study is the 1p, that we can attribute to machine, or person emulated by machines. I describe the 3p and the 1ps (singular and plural), and indeed their necessary statistical relation at some level. That is my argument for using semiotics, which includes 1p (or interprant) as a necessary and natural part of its triad of relations. Your responses seem to leave out such relations. I cannot find again the quote I should have bookmarked, but in an argument for using semiotics on the web, it was said that modern cognitive theory has abandoned the self in an effort to depersonalize cognition. While this is a valid scientific reason, it doesn't work when living breathing humans are concerned. I use computer and mathematical logic semantic. That's the advantage of comp. You have computer science. IMHO leaving out [1p ] in such a way will forever prevent computer calculations from emulating the mind. The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 13:03:12 Subject: Re: Semantic vs logical truth On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote:
Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can bemonads. Cool.
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:23, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal By universal numbers are you referring to the numbers as seen by Pythagoras ? I'm a little hesistant to get into that stuff or anything esoteric since becoming a Christian. Good! No, by universal numbers I mean a code for a universal Turing machine (what a physical computers approximate very well). Enumerate all the programs in some fixed universal programming language: p_0, p_1, p_2, p_3, ... Call phi_i the corresponding partial computable function. u is said to be a universal number if phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y). u is the computer, x is the program, and y is the data. x,y is a bijection from NXN to N, so as to keep the phi_i having all one input/variable. Nothing esoteric here, it is computer science. Bruno There is a short video of these at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7AyNFpJ6DA [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 05:09:15 Subject: Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can bemonads. Cool. On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:57, Roger Clough wrote: Here's an additional observation-- Only the prime numbers can be monads, because all other integers can not be subdivided and still remain integers. Hmm... numbers are monad when seen as index of a partial computable function. the monad are the program, which you can see as a number relative to a universal number. Keep in mind I use comp (renamed CTM for Computationalist theory of Mind). Bruno Cool. - Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-07, 08:33:37 Subject: Fw: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers, whatever they be. - Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:36 Subject: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads Hi Bruno Marchal 1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's 1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God. 2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I thought that all monads had to refer to physical substances. But natural numbers are different because even though they are only mental substances, they're still substances, by virtue of the fact that they can't be subdivided. So they are of one part each. Thus the natural numbers are monads, even though they have no physical correlates. Sorry I've be so slow to see that. That reallyiopens doors Then numbers can see each other with 1p. WHOOPEE ! [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:44:46 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 05 Dec 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we can not code for [1p]. But we need not abandon itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive theory has done. On the contrary, I define it is a simple way (the owner of the diary) the the self-multiplication thought experiment (UDA). It is enough to understand that physics emerge from the way the numbers see themselves. But in the math part, I define it by using the fact that the incompleteness phenomenon redeemed the Theatetus definition. The Bp p definition. It is a bit technical. Don't worry. The 1p is the inner god, the first person, the knower, and it plays the key role for consciousness and matter. We can replace [1p] by its actions - those of perception, in which terms are relational (subject: object). You seem to deal with everything from the 3p perspective. That's science. But don't confuse the level. My object of study is the 1p, that we can attribute to machine, or person emulated by machines. I describe the 3p and the 1ps (singular and plural), and indeed their necessary statistical relation at some level. That is my argument for using semiotics, which includes 1p (or interprant) as a necessary and natural part of its triad of relations. Your responses seem to leave out such relations. I cannot find again the quote I should have bookmarked, but in an argument for using semiotics on the web, it was said that modern cognitive theory has abandoned the self in an effort to depersonalize cognition. While this is a valid scientific reason, it doesn't work when living breathing humans are concerned. I use computer and mathematical logic semantic. That's the advantage of comp. You have computer science. IMHO leaving out [1p ] in such a
