Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads
On 10 Dec 2012, at 20:25, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I wonder if you know German proverbs: Wirf die Katz' wie du willst, sie faellt auf die Fűsse (throw the cat as you wish, she falls onto her feet). We have it in french. In fact cat really falls onto their feet :) Bruno J On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Dec 2012, at 22:10, John Mikes wrote: OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system. The last time I really studied math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget. 12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a math- system, like with 2 the binary, or with 10 the decimal. The rest is application (ha ha). Ask the super-duper universal computer of yours. He is still very dumb, you know. He has not some much practice in real life. I am already happy he can understand cut, copy, and send, unlike some participants :) Sorry for erring into such un-serious and un-scientific corners. It was fun, no problem. It would still be interesting to see if your 12/17 ary system makes your numbers verify my axioms: x + 0 = x x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1 x *0 = 0 x*(y + 1) = x*y + x If that is the case, we can use your numbers, and it will change noting in the TOE, we will get the same consciousness and the same physics. Have a good Christmas time Happy Christmas to you too John. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads
On 09 Dec 2012, at 22:10, John Mikes wrote: OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system. The last time I really studied math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget. 12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a math- system, like with 2 the binary, or with 10 the decimal. The rest is application (ha ha). Ask the super-duper universal computer of yours. He is still very dumb, you know. He has not some much practice in real life. I am already happy he can understand cut, copy, and send, unlike some participants :) Sorry for erring into such un-serious and un-scientific corners. It was fun, no problem. It would still be interesting to see if your 12/17 ary system makes your numbers verify my axioms: x + 0 = x x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1 x *0 = 0 x*(y + 1) = x*y + x If that is the case, we can use your numbers, and it will change noting in the TOE, we will get the same consciousness and the same physics. Have a good Christmas time Happy Christmas to you too John. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads
Hi John, On 08 Dec 2012, at 21:32, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal, binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems? in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1. I am not sure I understand what a 12/17 ary system. Thanks for using the base 10 for 12 and 17, at least. Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind). Not sure. Also zero can be thought of in non-human logic as participant in calculations. The chinese makes them so, and basically all numbers, except 3, 4, 5, 6, were first seen as useful participants until we develop the axiomatic method where we can work on any system on numbers as long as we find some axioms making it possible to share the discoveries with others. John M PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work. Oops! Too late :) Best, Bruno On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers, whatever they be. Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... Bruno - 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: On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines
Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads
OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system. The last time I really *studied* math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget. 12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a math-system, like with 2 the binary, or with 10 the decimal. The rest is application (ha ha). Ask the super-duper universal computer of yours. Sorry for erring into such un-serious and un-scientific corners. Have a good Christmas time John -- On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi John, On 08 Dec 2012, at 21:32, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal, binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems? in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1. I am not sure I understand what a 12/17 ary system. Thanks for using the base 10 for 12 and 17, at least. Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind). Not sure. Also zero can be thought of in non-human logic as participant in calculations. The chinese makes them so, and basically all numbers, except 3, 4, 5, 6, were first seen as useful participants until we develop the axiomatic method where we can work on any system on numbers as long as we find some axioms making it possible to share the discoveries with others. John M PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work. Oops! Too late :) Best, Bruno On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers, whatever they be. Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... Bruno - 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
Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads
On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers, whatever they be. Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... Bruno - 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: On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p- truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation). Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp p is NOT codable. Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable. Many things true about us is not codable either. Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. that p describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of a machine. No, p is for some statement at the base level, like 1+1 = 2. That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is no part of the state corresponding to I *believe* I am south of my landing point. Then Mars Rover is not L?ian. But I am not even sure that Mars Rover is
Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads
Bruno: how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal, binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems? in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1. Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind). Also zero can be thought of in non-human logic as participant in calculations. John M PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers, whatever they be. Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... Bruno - 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: On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation). Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp p is NOT codable. Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable. Many things true about us is not codable either.
