Re: Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 4:23 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > 3.5 million years ago isn't that far away in geologic or even in
> biologic time.  I would think being irradiated by a kilonova would show up
> a lot of other places besides a couple of isotopes in the crust.*
>

There was no mass extinction 3.5 million years ago either, but then a
kilonova wouldn't be as dangerous as a supernova, and  550 light years is
far enough away to be pretty safe even from a supernova. Kilonovas, the
collision of two neutron stars, produce between 10 and 100 times less
energy than a supernova.
 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
efs






>
> Brent
>
> On 12/12/2023 6:43 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> Surprisingly the isotopes Iron-60 and Plutonium-244 were found in ocean
> sediments that are known to be between 3 and 4 million years old, and no,
> the Plutonium couldn't have come from nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s
> because nuclear bombs use Plutonium-239 not 244.  Pu-244 has a half-life of
> 81 million years and Iron-60 is 2.6 million, so these elements must've been
> produced long after the Earth formed. A supernova can produce Iron-60 but
> it is thought that only a kilonova, the collision of two neutron stars, can
> produce plutonium-244.  By taking into consideration the known age of the
> ocean sediment and the ratio of those two isotopes, a recent paper has
> calculated that those results could be explained by a kilonova exploding
> about 550 light years from Earth 3.5 million years ago.
>
> Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago?
> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.17159.pdf>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2DFh%3DKo0Tkgp2Pe3Bkac7GiAAH%2BTnbL8oGuxD_qj_L9g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago?

[Brent Meeker]

3.5 million years ago isn't that far away in geologic or even in 
biologic time.  I would think being irradiated by a kilonova would show 
up a lot of other places besides a couple of isotopes in the crust.


Brent

On 12/12/2023 6:43 AM, John Clark wrote:
Surprisingly the isotopes Iron-60 and Plutonium-244 were found in 
ocean sediments that are known to be between 3 and 4 million years 
old, and no, the Plutonium couldn't have come from nuclear bomb 
testing in the 1950s because nuclear bombs use Plutonium-239 not 244.  
Pu-244 has a half-life of 81 million years and Iron-60 is 2.6 million, 
so these elements must've been produced long after the Earth formed. A 
supernova can produce Iron-60 but it is thought that only a kilonova, 
the collision of two neutron stars, can produce plutonium-244.  By 
taking into consideration the known age of the ocean sediment and the 
ratio of those two isotopes, a recent paper has calculated that those 
results could be explained by a kilonova exploding about 550 light 
years from Earth 3.5 million years ago.


Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago? 
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.17159.pdf>


 John K Clark






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1wjXD9iDMUCnK6M3rG8fnppaau3pxBaBvGXcKbXYBnWg%40mail.gmail.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1wjXD9iDMUCnK6M3rG8fnppaau3pxBaBvGXcKbXYBnWg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e6edcd25-4ca8-410a-86fa-9ebc7dd7df07%40gmail.com.

Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago?

[John Clark]

Surprisingly the isotopes Iron-60 and Plutonium-244 were found in ocean
sediments that are known to be between 3 and 4 million years old, and no,
the Plutonium couldn't have come from nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s
because nuclear bombs use Plutonium-239 not 244.  Pu-244 has a half-life of
81 million years and Iron-60 is 2.6 million, so these elements must've been
produced long after the Earth formed. A supernova can produce Iron-60 but
it is thought that only a kilonova, the collision of two neutron stars, can
produce plutonium-244.  By taking into consideration the known age of the
ocean sediment and the ratio of those two isotopes, a recent paper has
calculated that those results could be explained by a kilonova exploding
about 550 light years from Earth 3.5 million years ago.

Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago?
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.17159.pdf>

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1wjXD9iDMUCnK6M3rG8fnppaau3pxBaBvGXcKbXYBnWg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 May 2020, at 16:20, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 15 May 2020, at 21:12, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is true!
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  "Magic " is described as 
>>> being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers 
>>> and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic 
>>> spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient 
>>> powers and opening gates to other dimensions. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don’t believe in “real magic”. If time travel was possible and a 
>> time-traveller comes back with a documentary showing Jesus making water into 
>> wine, I would still consider that the most plausible explanation would be 
>> that Jesus is a good prestidigitator. 
>> 
>> Why? Just by considering the degree of credulity of the humans, and their 
>> craft in prestidigitation. 
>> 
>> Similarly, I find far more reasonable, even “Occam-reasonable” that the 
>> appearance of a physical universe is due to number’s prestidigitation, 
>> because incompleteness shows the numbers being both terribly naïve, but also 
>> incredibly gifted in the art of making their fellow number believing almost 
>> everything. Gödel’s theorem warned us; if we are consistent, it is even 
>> consistent that we are inconsistent (<>t -> <>[]f).
>> 
>> Computationalism is Prestidigitalism. Lol. 
>> 
>> Wolfram is correct about “[]p”, but forget completely []p & p (and thus 
>> missed physics, theology, etc.)
>> 
>> At least Penrose is aware of the abyssal difference between “[]p” and “[]p & 
>> p”, but literally confusse them in its use of Gödel’s incompleteness against 
>> Mechanism.
>> 
>> So, with respect to metaphysics and to the Mind-Body problem in the frame of 
>> Descartes-Darwin Mechanism, we can say that Penrose is less wrong than 
>> Wolfram, and more interestingly-wrong.
>> 
>> I am not claiming that Penrose or Wolfram are wrong. I am just comparing 
>> them with the canonical theology of the universal machine, that is, with the 
>> 8 modes of self-truth/belief/knowledge/observation/sensation of the 
>> universal machine having enough induction beliefs/axioms, in any hard or 
>> soft relative implementation.
>> 
>> Those modes can be motivated through Mechanist thought experiments and/or 
>> through the Theaetetus of Plato.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Wolfram thinks that his Hypergraphic Universe Modeling (HUM) language can 
>> lead to a unified QM+GR theory.
>> 
>> Do you think consciousness is needed for this unification?
> 
> Not necessarily, in the sense that it is still possible to conceive a theory 
> of "everything physical” which would be logically independent of a theory of 
> consciousness, as far as we are interested in predicting first person plural 
> observation.
> 
> But such a theory would be cut from reality, as it would not be able to 
> explain why our consciousness satisfies those prediction, so it would not be 
> a theory of everything.
> 
> To get that theory of everything including mind and consciousness, there are 
> two options: a mechanist theory of mind, or a non mechanist theory of mind. 
> With a mechanist theory, you will need to derive the “theory of 
> everything-physical” from arithmetic. I don’t see any other way to get a 
> theory of consciousness adequate with the physical observation.
> With a non-mechanist theory of mind, everything remains open, if only because 
> such a theory of mind does not exist (except in faith tales).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> The get a theory of consciousness (or experience), one starts with a "sixth" 
> force/field, allowing for the other five -  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force 
> - around now.


The notion of (physical force) is, by default, a 3p notion (even if later we 
discover that it is a 1p-plural) notion, yet with clear 3p describable 
theories. I don’t see how adding a 3p notion can help. What is it, where does 
it come from, and, how is is related to consciousness, first person, qualia, 
etc.

And why? When you understand that the elementary truth related to any Turing 
complete theory is enough to explain the qualia, including the quanta, and that 
Nature seems to obey to the theory of quanta extracted from arithmetic. It 
looks like adding difficulties without needing them, just to make the problem 
more complex?


> 
> It's nature would be "localized" in a way different from the other five (or 
> four).
> 
> And no one knows what gravity - for example - really is either, aside from 
> some mathematical formulas - we invented - matching its "behavior".
> 

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 May 2020, at 21:12, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> This is true!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files
>>
>>  "Magic " is described 
>> as being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers 
>> and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic 
>> spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient 
>> powers and opening gates to other dimensions. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t believe in “real magic”. If time travel was possible and a 
>> time-traveller comes back with a documentary showing Jesus making water 
>> into wine, I would still consider that the most plausible explanation would 
>> be that Jesus is a good prestidigitator. 
>>
>> Why? Just by considering the degree of credulity of the humans, and their 
>> craft in prestidigitation. 
>>
>> Similarly, I find far more reasonable, even “Occam-reasonable” that the 
>> appearance of a physical universe is due to number’s prestidigitation, 
>> because incompleteness shows the numbers being both terribly naïve, but 
>> also incredibly gifted in the art of making their fellow number believing 
>> almost everything. Gödel’s theorem warned us; if we are consistent, it is 
>> even consistent that we are inconsistent (<>t -> <>[]f).
>>
>> Computationalism is Prestidigitalism. Lol. 
>>
>> Wolfram is correct about “[]p”, but forget completely []p & p (and thus 
>> missed physics, theology, etc.)
>>
>> At least Penrose is aware of the abyssal difference between “[]p” and 
>> “[]p & p”, but literally confusse them in its use of Gödel’s incompleteness 
>> against Mechanism.
>>
>> So, with respect to metaphysics and to the Mind-Body problem in the frame 
>> of Descartes-Darwin Mechanism, we can say that Penrose is less wrong than 
>> Wolfram, and more interestingly-wrong.
>>
>> I am not claiming that Penrose or Wolfram are wrong. I am just comparing 
>> them with the canonical theology of the universal machine, that is, with 
>> the 8 modes of self-truth/belief/knowledge/observation/sensation of the 
>> universal machine having enough induction beliefs/axioms, in any hard or 
>> soft relative implementation.
>>
>> Those modes can be motivated through Mechanist thought experiments and/or 
>> through the Theaetetus of Plato.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Wolfram thinks that his H*ypergraphic Universe Modeling (HUM) language* 
> can lead to a unified QM+GR theory.
>
> Do you think consciousness is needed for this unification?
>
>
> Not necessarily, in the sense that it is still possible to conceive a 
> theory of "everything physical” which would be logically independent of a 
> theory of consciousness, as far as we are interested in predicting first 
> person plural observation.
>
> But such a theory would be cut from reality, as it would not be able to 
> explain why our consciousness satisfies those prediction, so it would not 
> be a theory of everything.
>
> To get that theory of everything including mind and consciousness, there 
> are two options: a mechanist theory of mind, or a non mechanist theory of 
> mind. With a mechanist theory, you will need to derive the “theory of 
> everything-physical” from arithmetic. I don’t see any other way to get a 
> theory of consciousness adequate with the physical observation.
> With a non-mechanist theory of mind, everything remains open, if only 
> because such a theory of mind does not exist (except in faith tales).
>
> Bruno
>
>
The get a theory of consciousness (or experience), one starts with a 
"sixth" force/field, allowing for the other five -  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force- around now.

It's nature would be "localized" in a way different from the other five (or 
four).

And no one knows what gravity - for example - really is either, aside from 
some mathematical formulas - we invented - matching its "behavior".

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3b9fa6a6-0e35-4581-8390-52fcd2cefc7d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 May 2020, at 21:12, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> This is true!
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files 
>> 
>> 
>>  "Magic " is described as 
>> being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers and 
>> equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic 
>> spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient 
>> powers and opening gates to other dimensions. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t believe in “real magic”. If time travel was possible and a 
> time-traveller comes back with a documentary showing Jesus making water into 
> wine, I would still consider that the most plausible explanation would be 
> that Jesus is a good prestidigitator. 
> 
> Why? Just by considering the degree of credulity of the humans, and their 
> craft in prestidigitation. 
> 
> Similarly, I find far more reasonable, even “Occam-reasonable” that the 
> appearance of a physical universe is due to number’s prestidigitation, 
> because incompleteness shows the numbers being both terribly naïve, but also 
> incredibly gifted in the art of making their fellow number believing almost 
> everything. Gödel’s theorem warned us; if we are consistent, it is even 
> consistent that we are inconsistent (<>t -> <>[]f).
> 
> Computationalism is Prestidigitalism. Lol. 
> 
> Wolfram is correct about “[]p”, but forget completely []p & p (and thus 
> missed physics, theology, etc.)
> 
> At least Penrose is aware of the abyssal difference between “[]p” and “[]p & 
> p”, but literally confusse them in its use of Gödel’s incompleteness against 
> Mechanism.
> 
> So, with respect to metaphysics and to the Mind-Body problem in the frame of 
> Descartes-Darwin Mechanism, we can say that Penrose is less wrong than 
> Wolfram, and more interestingly-wrong.
> 
> I am not claiming that Penrose or Wolfram are wrong. I am just comparing them 
> with the canonical theology of the universal machine, that is, with the 8 
> modes of self-truth/belief/knowledge/observation/sensation of the universal 
> machine having enough induction beliefs/axioms, in any hard or soft relative 
> implementation.
> 
> Those modes can be motivated through Mechanist thought experiments and/or 
> through the Theaetetus of Plato.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfram thinks that his Hypergraphic Universe Modeling (HUM) language can 
> lead to a unified QM+GR theory.
> 
> Do you think consciousness is needed for this unification?

Not necessarily, in the sense that it is still possible to conceive a theory of 
"everything physical” which would be logically independent of a theory of 
consciousness, as far as we are interested in predicting first person plural 
observation.

But such a theory would be cut from reality, as it would not be able to explain 
why our consciousness satisfies those prediction, so it would not be a theory 
of everything.

To get that theory of everything including mind and consciousness, there are 
two options: a mechanist theory of mind, or a non mechanist theory of mind. 
With a mechanist theory, you will need to derive the “theory of 
everything-physical” from arithmetic. I don’t see any other way to get a theory 
of consciousness adequate with the physical observation.
With a non-mechanist theory of mind, everything remains open, if only because 
such a theory of mind does not exist (except in faith tales).

Bruno


> 
> That would be bizarre.






> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d1e6375b-4e54-4942-9623-cb9146d88419%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F490E5E3-1C65-4F76-A6E7-96C2D9E22BF5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
> This is true!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files
>
>  "Magic " is described 
> as being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers 
> and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic 
> spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient 
> powers and opening gates to other dimensions. 
>
>
>
>
> I don’t believe in “real magic”. If time travel was possible and a 
> time-traveller comes back with a documentary showing Jesus making water 
> into wine, I would still consider that the most plausible explanation would 
> be that Jesus is a good prestidigitator. 
>
> Why? Just by considering the degree of credulity of the humans, and their 
> craft in prestidigitation. 
>
> Similarly, I find far more reasonable, even “Occam-reasonable” that the 
> appearance of a physical universe is due to number’s prestidigitation, 
> because incompleteness shows the numbers being both terribly naïve, but 
> also incredibly gifted in the art of making their fellow number believing 
> almost everything. Gödel’s theorem warned us; if we are consistent, it is 
> even consistent that we are inconsistent (<>t -> <>[]f).
>
> Computationalism is Prestidigitalism. Lol. 
>
> Wolfram is correct about “[]p”, but forget completely []p & p (and thus 
> missed physics, theology, etc.)
>
> At least Penrose is aware of the abyssal difference between “[]p” and “[]p 
> & p”, but literally confusse them in its use of Gödel’s incompleteness 
> against Mechanism.
>
> So, with respect to metaphysics and to the Mind-Body problem in the frame 
> of Descartes-Darwin Mechanism, we can say that Penrose is less wrong than 
> Wolfram, and more interestingly-wrong.
>
> I am not claiming that Penrose or Wolfram are wrong. I am just comparing 
> them with the canonical theology of the universal machine, that is, with 
> the 8 modes of self-truth/belief/knowledge/observation/sensation of the 
> universal machine having enough induction beliefs/axioms, in any hard or 
> soft relative implementation.
>
> Those modes can be motivated through Mechanist thought experiments and/or 
> through the Theaetetus of Plato.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>

Wolfram thinks that his H*ypergraphic Universe Modeling (HUM) language* can 
lead to a unified QM+GR theory.

Do you think consciousness is needed for this unification?

That would be bizarre.

@philipthrift



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d1e6375b-4e54-4942-9623-cb9146d88419%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> This is true!
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files>
> 
>  "Magic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)>" is described as 
> being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers and 
> equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic 
> spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient 
> powers and opening gates to other dimensions. 



I don’t believe in “real magic”. If time travel was possible and a 
time-traveller comes back with a documentary showing Jesus making water into 
wine, I would still consider that the most plausible explanation would be that 
Jesus is a good prestidigitator. 

Why? Just by considering the degree of credulity of the humans, and their craft 
in prestidigitation. 

Similarly, I find far more reasonable, even “Occam-reasonable” that the 
appearance of a physical universe is due to number’s prestidigitation, because 
incompleteness shows the numbers being both terribly naïve, but also incredibly 
gifted in the art of making their fellow number believing almost everything. 
Gödel’s theorem warned us; if we are consistent, it is even consistent that we 
are inconsistent (<>t -> <>[]f).

Computationalism is Prestidigitalism. Lol. 

Wolfram is correct about “[]p”, but forget completely []p & p (and thus missed 
physics, theology, etc.)

At least Penrose is aware of the abyssal difference between “[]p” and “[]p & 
p”, but literally confusse them in its use of Gödel’s incompleteness against 
Mechanism.

So, with respect to metaphysics and to the Mind-Body problem in the frame of 
Descartes-Darwin Mechanism, we can say that Penrose is less wrong than Wolfram, 
and more interestingly-wrong.

I am not claiming that Penrose or Wolfram are wrong. I am just comparing them 
with the canonical theology of the universal machine, that is, with the 8 modes 
of self-truth/belief/knowledge/observation/sensation of the universal machine 
having enough induction beliefs/axioms, in any hard or soft relative 
implementation.

Those modes can be motivated through Mechanist thought experiments and/or 
through the Theaetetus of Plato.

Bruno







> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 4:48:16 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> Hmm! Reminds me of the Laundry Novels by writer Charles Stross.
> 
> 
> "I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft."
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Philip Thrift >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 4:49 pm
> Subject: Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems
> 
> 
> I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
> I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics I 
> have learned.
>  Ronald
> 
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems
> https://github.com/maxitg/ SetReplace <https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace>
> 
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics. org/ <https://www.wolframphysics.org/>
> 
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute of 
> Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
> 
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating.” 
> 
> https://www. scientificamerican.com/ article/physicists-criticize- 
> stephen-wolframs-theory-of- everything/ 
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/>
> 
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> -
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/654245aa-f717-447f-bbf5-645281a83a99%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/654245aa-f717-447f-bbf5-645281a83a99%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DDD840CB-F800-4DCC-969D-AE1126563148%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Philip Thrift]

This is true!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files

 "Magic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)>" is described as 
being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers 
and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic 
spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient 
powers and opening gates to other dimensions. 

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 4:48:16 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hmm! Reminds me of the Laundry Novels by writer Charles Stross. 
>
>
> "I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft."
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Thrift >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 4:49 pm
> Subject: Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems
>
>
> I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft. 
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics 
> I have learned. 
>  Ronald
>
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
> https://github.com/maxitg/ SetReplace 
> <https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace>
>
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics. org/ <https://www.wolframphysics.org/>
>
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
> communicating.” 
>
> https://www. scientificamerican.com/ article/physicists-criticize- 
> stephen-wolframs-theory-of- everything/ 
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/>
>
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> -
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/654245aa-f717-447f-bbf5-645281a83a99%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Hmm! Reminds me of the Laundry Novels by writer Charles Stross.

"I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft."

-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems


I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft.
@philipthrift
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics I 
have learned.     Ronald
On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systemshttps://github.com/maxitg/ SetReplace
cf. https://www.wolframphysics. org/
Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute of 
Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
“I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating.” 
https://www. scientificamerican.com/ article/physicists-criticize- 
stephen-wolframs-theory-of- everything/
“I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8585716-989e-4ab7-89a9-b92905256311%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1001949433.343055.1589406491742%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Philip Thrift]

I learned Physics = Math + Witchcraft.

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics 
> I have learned.
>  Ronald
>
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
>> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>>
>> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>>
>> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
>> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>>
>> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
>> communicating.” 
>>
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>>
>> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
>> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8585716-989e-4ab7-89a9-b92905256311%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[ronaldheld]

I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics 
I have learned.
 Ronald

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
> communicating.” 
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4309f23a-381a-4a62-8d28-fa3dbeedfbf4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 May 2020, at 00:26, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> But we know though, there is no real physical theory.


In which metaphysics?

In arithmetic all universal machine already knows that there is no REAL 
physical universe, and that physics is a calculus of prediction on 
computational histories as seen from their first person points of view.

*we* might still observe a difference, in which case either Mechanism is wrong 
or we are in a second order normal simulation. But up to now, there is no 
evidence that physics is different from the physics “in the head” of the 
Universal Turing machine.

This is a progress, as this assumes only very elementary arithmetic for the 
ontology, and the standard definition for the phenomenology, (with direct 
motivation with the mechanist assumption at the meta level) and it explains 
both the quanta and the qualia, and why it looks so different (and is 
different, actually).

It is very simple. One reality (the sigma_1 arithmetical reality), and 8 points 
of view:

p   (truth)
[]p (provable, rationally believable)
[]p & p (knowable, first person)
[]p & <>t   (observable, “bettable”, first person plural)
[]p & <>t & p   (sensible, feelable, first person singular)

Those five nuances provides 8 mathematical theory, because three of them split 
along the key incompleteness difference between G1 and G1*. (Those are the 
logic of []p, which emulates all the others,including G1*, and the “1” comes 
from the limitation of the arithmetical interpretation on the sigma_1 
sentences).That is handy to distinguish quanta from qualia.

G1 = G + p-> []p for p atomic letter. (Already discover and axiomatised by 
Visser).

G1 can emulate G1*. For example, G* proves A iff G prove the conjunction of the 
refection of the boxed sub-formula of A. (The reflection of p is the formula 
[]p -> p). It is a form of “YD”: G* believes (about the machine, not about 
itself) that the machine survives if all its subpart “survives”, somehow. (The 
arithmetical interpretation of p is always limited

G1* proves the equivalence of all the modalities above, but G1 does not prove 
most of them.

It is a complete (at the propositional level) theology valid for all 
self-rerefntially correct machine believing in “enough induction” axiom, and it 
is testable, by comparing the physical theories related to the “observable” 
with Nature.

I recall that a machine is universal if it p -> []p (for all p sigma_1) is true 
for that machine. That is the case for RA.
A machine is by definition Löbian (or Gödel-Löbian) if it proves p -> []p (for 
all p sigma_1).

That theology is complete for all their effective consistent extensions.

But this becomes as undecidable as it could logically be at the first oder 
modal logical level. qG is PI_2 complete, and qG* is PI_1 complete in the 
oracle of truth (!). In this theology, The One is overwhelmed by the Noùs! It 
is quite Poitinian, as Matter is brought by the Soul at the place where God 
loses control, to talk poetically (perhaps).

Wolfram is not bad in some part of c computer science, but I am not sure he is 
serious about “new science” or in metaphysics.

With mechanism, Gödel-Löb-Solovay (G*) solves the mind-body problem in a 
testable way, as the physics is given by some modalities above, and that can be 
tested.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> My primary difficulty with this is not that this is a possibly useful 
> math-method, but that I have little physical sense of what this means. As 
> some combinatorics or paths or states this may have some utility, but this to 
> me is not terribly much a real physical theory.
> 
> LC
> 
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 3:13:05 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace <https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace>
> 
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/ <https://www.wolframphysics.org/>
> 
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute of 
> Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
> 
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating.” 
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>  
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/>
> 
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiv

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Philip Thrift]

But we know though, there is no real physical theory.

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> My primary difficulty with this is not that this is a possibly useful 
> math-method, but that I have little physical sense of what this means. As 
> some combinatorics or paths or states this may have some utility, but this 
> to me is not terribly much a real physical theory.
>
> LC
>
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 3:13:05 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
>> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>>
>> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>>
>> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
>> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>>
>> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
>> communicating.” 
>>
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>>
>> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
>> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5162709e-0cf0-414f-99b4-7fc715bcca2e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Lawrence Crowell]

My primary difficulty with this is not that this is a possibly useful 
math-method, but that I have little physical sense of what this means. As 
some combinatorics or paths or states this may have some utility, but this 
to me is not terribly much a real physical theory.

LC

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 3:13:05 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
> communicating.” 
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/897d9661-c3bf-49de-9435-9b93fc1dffec%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[ronaldheld]

Not  a favorable review from SA.   If he submitted peer reviewed documents 
years ago, things might be different today.
  Ronald

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
> communicating.” 
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1254dc3e-6705-49b4-9d36-e9b629871c78%40googlegroups.com.

Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Philip Thrift]

*Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace

cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/

Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 

“I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
communicating.” 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/

“I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5d1cfb41-5477-412d-8cae-3de6c30d1b30%40googlegroups.com.

A Formal System of Axiomatic Set Theory in Coq

[Philip Thrift]

pdf: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp==8970457


@philiptrhrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a42962ad-a0ef-4111-953f-dc248b65cbe0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 5:52:05 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> You have to go beyond point-set topology and consider homology or homotopy 
> theory, With a sphere a curve is a loop that is contractible to a point. A 
> line in flat spacetime is not contractible. This might make one thinkthere 
> is a homology, or cohomology, of H^1(R^2) = ker(M)/im(M) for M a map. The 
> homotopy π_1 for the sphere is zero, contractible, but is Z for the 
> Euclidean space. One might think the homology H_1(R^2) is the same, but 
> Euclidean plane and 2-sphere have a trick up their sleeve with the 
> stereographic projection so the pole of S^2 gets mapped to "infinity" So 
> the middle homology group or ring is zero. The homotopy fundamental form  
> π_1 has commutators that make it not zero. However, that stereographic 
> projections means the point at the pole is mapped away so while the sphere 
> has H_0(S) = H_2(S) = Z the Euclidean plane has H_0(R^2) = 0. 
>
> LC
>

Why do cosmologists say a hyper-spherical universe is closed, whereas a 
plane is open, when in point-set topology they're both closed (both contain 
their accumulation points)? What do open and closed mean? AG 

>
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 7:38:43 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Both are connected. Both have no boundary. Both are closed, since both 
>> contain their accumulation points. Both have uncountable elements. So how 
>> can they be distinguished within the context of point-set topology? TIA, AG
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/430e438f-c3e4-4453-951c-bb58623f7764%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

[Lawrence Crowell]

You have to go beyond point-set topology and consider homology or homotopy 
theory, With a sphere a curve is a loop that is contractible to a point. A 
line in flat spacetime is not contractible. This might make one thinkthere 
is a homology, or cohomology, of H^1(R^2) = ker(M)/im(M) for M a map. The 
homotopy π_1 for the sphere is zero, contractible, but is Z for the 
Euclidean space. One might think the homology H_1(R^2) is the same, but 
Euclidean plane and 2-sphere have a trick up their sleeve with the 
stereographic projection so the pole of S^2 gets mapped to "infinity" So 
the middle homology group or ring is zero. The homotopy fundamental form  π_1 
has commutators that make it not zero. However, that stereographic 
projections means the point at the pole is mapped away so while the sphere 
has H_0(S) = H_2(S) = Z the Euclidean plane has H_0(R^2) = 0. 

LC

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 7:38:43 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Both are connected. Both have no boundary. Both are closed, since both 
> contain their accumulation points. Both have uncountable elements. So how 
> can they be distinguished within the context of point-set topology? TIA, AG
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7cca37d9-4316-4180-a191-28a81764ff96%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 1/24/2020 8:34 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:47:26 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 1/24/2020 7:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 6:58:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

A closed curve on a sphere with a point not on the curve can
be contracted to a point without crossing the point not the
curve no matter where that point is.

Brent


Doesn't seem right. If we have a circle on the sphere, and a
point at its center, your claim will fail. AG


No it won't.  Just "expand" the circle till it contracts to the
anti-podal point.

Brent


OK. Is there a formal name for this property? AG


Spherical topology.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05ca952d-9243-32da-9ecb-0cf93220935e%40verizon.net.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:47:26 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/24/2020 7:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 6:58:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>> A closed curve on a sphere with a point not on the curve can be 
>> contracted to a point without crossing the point not the curve no matter 
>> where that point is.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Doesn't seem right. If we have a circle on the sphere, and a point at its 
> center, your claim will fail. AG
>
>
> No it won't.  Just "expand" the circle till it contracts to the anti-podal 
> point.
>
> Brent
>

OK. Is there a formal name for this property? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f1218e99-2d0c-4c4e-b61a-c2b9fb6efa96%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 1/24/2020 7:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 6:58:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

A closed curve on a sphere with a point not on the curve can be
contracted to a point without crossing the point not the curve no
matter where that point is.

Brent


Doesn't seem right. If we have a circle on the sphere, and a point at 
its center, your claim will fail. AG


No it won't.  Just "expand" the circle till it contracts to the 
anti-podal point.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12a69a34-06a5-1680-dcde-e749e9f27f65%40verizon.net.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 6:58:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> A closed curve on a sphere with a point not on the curve can be contracted 
> to a point without crossing the point not the curve no matter where that 
> point is.
>
> Brent
>

Doesn't seem right. If we have a circle on the sphere, and a point at its 
center, your claim will fail. AG
 

> On 1/24/2020 5:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Both are connected. Both have no boundary. Both are closed, since both 
> contain their accumulation points. Both have uncountable elements. So how 
> can they be distinguished within the context of point-set topology? TIA, AG
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05d34e67-7387-48d3-beee-f703c98bace4%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05d34e67-7387-48d3-beee-f703c98bace4%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ede6f0b5-2b05-4b07-887a-ece6d4f4bd60%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 6:38:43 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Both are connected. Both have no boundary. Both are closed, since both 
> contain their accumulation points. Both have uncountable elements. So how 
> can they be distinguished within the context of point-set topology? TIA, AG
>

One way to distinguish the two surfaces is the fact that on a sphere, the 
path starting at any point, closes on itself, unlike the starting point on 
a plane. But what if the sphere is distorted, suppose it looks like potato. 
For a potato-shaped "sphere", this distinguishing feature fails. So the 
question remains. And the answer is, what? TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/705cb549-33fc-4d89-8d5f-c03ca3d1d18d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

A closed curve on a sphere with a point not on the curve can be 
contracted to a point without crossing the point not the curve no matter 
where that point is.


Brent

On 1/24/2020 5:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Both are connected. Both have no boundary. Both are closed, since both 
contain their accumulation points. Both have uncountable elements. So 
how can they be distinguished within the context of point-set 
topology? TIA, AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05d34e67-7387-48d3-beee-f703c98bace4%40googlegroups.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05d34e67-7387-48d3-beee-f703c98bace4%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/02cd67c7-f79d-f1c5-6a5f-f05272e78264%40verizon.net.

Sphere vs Plane in Point-Set Topology

[Alan Grayson]

Both are connected. Both have no boundary. Both are closed, since both 
contain their accumulation points. Both have uncountable elements. So how 
can they be distinguished within the context of point-set topology? TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05d34e67-7387-48d3-beee-f703c98bace4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Finitist Set Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 May 2019, at 14:09, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> In its proof theory.

OK. Thus you get it at the meta-level, that is also the case with Mechanism. 
But to get the universal machine, you need finitism, and some infinities or at 
least powerful induction axiom for the definition of the observer. Then the 
infinities can be shown to be natural from the observer points of view, despite 
the finitism at the ontological level.

Bruno



> 
> Each variable is changed to a (dynamically-nested, indefinitely-sized) type 
> variable, effectively a process where elements are added as needed.
> 
> cf. 
> https://poesophicalbits.blogspot.com/2012/04/persons-without-infinities.html 
> <https://poesophicalbits.blogspot.com/2012/04/persons-without-infinities.html>
> 
> Death to Platonism.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:13:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 23 May 2019, at 19:17, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> If you "combine" Finitist Set Theory with Locally Finite Theories, what you 
>> get is a version of Axiom of Infinity with "processes" creating bigger and 
>> bigger sets with gaps in them.
> 
> I guess you mean we get this in the meta-theory?
> 
> If not explain me how you get omega, the first infinite ordinal, *in* the 
> theory, without some infinity axiom.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:34:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> This seems to be a strengthening of elementary finite set theory, which is 
>> the theory of Zermelo minus the axiom of infinity.
>> 
>> The theory of Zermelo is ZF without the Replacement Axioms (needed to 
>> compare the well-ordering and the ordinals) and without the foundation 
>> axioms (when we reject set belonging to themselves).
>> 
>> I would not say that set theory is used for the foundation of mathematics. 
>> It is mainly a theory on the infinities, lurking toward the inconsistent big 
>> unnameable one. Sort of vertical theological shortcut. 
>> 
>> Elementary finite set theory is Turing complete (Turing universal).
>> 
>>  It is a set theoretic version of something between RA and PA.
>> 
>> It is a universal machinery with its universal machines, and all others.
>> 
>> It is a what I call a universal number. Each one has its application and 
>> purpose “in life”.
>> 
>> God loves them all
>> 
>> (I guess)
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 22 May 2019, at 22:08, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Finitist Set Theory
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory>
>>> 
>>> "The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
>>> model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
>>> by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
>>> are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
>>> which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only 
>>> those elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed 
>>> by the selected axioms: only those urs [ 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement> ] exist which are stated to exist 
>>> by assigning their number, and only those sets exist which are constructed 
>>> by the selected axioms; no other elements exist in addition to these."
>>> 
>>> From:
>>> Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
>>> Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
>>> Applied Ontology  (2018)
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> "This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
>>> applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a 
>>> straightforward foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations 
>>> between individuals but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. 
>>> Traditional set theories are capable of modeling transitive and 
>>> antitransitive chains of relations, but due to their function as 
>>> foundations of mathematics they come with features that make them 
>>> unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite structures. FST has been 
>>> designed to function as a practical tool in modeling transitive and 
>>> antitransitive chains of relations without sufferin

Re: Finitist Set Theory

[Philip Thrift]

In its proof theory.

Each variable is changed to a (dynamically-nested, indefinitely-sized) type 
variable, effectively a process where elements are added as needed.

cf. 
https://poesophicalbits.blogspot.com/2012/04/persons-without-infinities.html

Death to Platonism.

@philipthrift

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:13:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 May 2019, at 19:17, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> If you "combine" Finitist Set Theory with Locally Finite Theories, what 
> you get is a version of Axiom of Infinity with "processes" creating bigger 
> and bigger sets with gaps in them.
>
>
> I guess you mean we get this in the meta-theory?
>
> If not explain me how you get omega, the first infinite ordinal, *in* the 
> theory, without some infinity axiom.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:34:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> This seems to be a strengthening of elementary finite set theory, which 
>> is the theory of Zermelo minus the axiom of infinity.
>>
>> The theory of Zermelo is ZF without the Replacement Axioms (needed to 
>> compare the well-ordering and the ordinals) and without the foundation 
>> axioms (when we reject set belonging to themselves).
>>
>> I would not say that set theory is used for the foundation of 
>> mathematics. It is mainly a theory on the infinities, lurking toward the 
>> inconsistent big unnameable one. Sort of vertical theological shortcut. 
>>
>> Elementary finite set theory is Turing complete (Turing universal).
>>
>>  It is a set theoretic version of something between RA and PA.
>>
>> It is a universal machinery with its universal machines, and all others.
>>
>> It is a what I call a universal number. Each one has its application and 
>> purpose “in life”.
>>
>> God loves them all
>>
>> (I guess)
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 May 2019, at 22:08, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> Finitist Set Theory
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory
>>
>> "The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield 
>> a model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be 
>> modeled by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social 
>> constructions that are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always 
>> the minimal model which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that 
>> those and only those elements exist in the applied model which are 
>> explicitly constructed by the selected axioms: only those urs [ 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ] exist which are stated to 
>> exist by assigning their number, and only those sets exist which are 
>> constructed by the selected axioms; no other elements exist in addition to 
>> these."
>>
>> From:
>> Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
>> Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
>> Applied Ontology  (2018)
>>
>> Abstract
>> "This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can 
>> be applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a 
>> straightforward foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations 
>> between individuals but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. 
>> Traditional set theories are capable of modeling transitive and 
>> antitransitive chains of relations, but due to their function as 
>> foundations of mathematics they come with features that make them 
>> unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite structures. FST has been 
>> designed to function as a practical tool in modeling transitive and 
>> antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from difficulties of 
>> traditional set theories, and a major portion of the functionality of 
>> discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes FST a viable 
>> collection theory in ontological modeling."
>>
>>
>> Relation of finitist sets to processes:
>>
>> The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
>> adapted from: 
>> - Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
>> representation of emergent parts of processes. 
>> - Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process 
>> theory. 
>>
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory
>>
>> "General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process 
>> ont

Re: Finitist Set Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 19:17, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> If you "combine" Finitist Set Theory with Locally Finite Theories, what you 
> get is a version of Axiom of Infinity with "processes" creating bigger and 
> bigger sets with gaps in them.

I guess you mean we get this in the meta-theory?

If not explain me how you get omega, the first infinite ordinal, *in* the 
theory, without some infinity axiom.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:34:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> This seems to be a strengthening of elementary finite set theory, which is 
> the theory of Zermelo minus the axiom of infinity.
> 
> The theory of Zermelo is ZF without the Replacement Axioms (needed to compare 
> the well-ordering and the ordinals) and without the foundation axioms (when 
> we reject set belonging to themselves).
> 
> I would not say that set theory is used for the foundation of mathematics. It 
> is mainly a theory on the infinities, lurking toward the inconsistent big 
> unnameable one. Sort of vertical theological shortcut. 
> 
> Elementary finite set theory is Turing complete (Turing universal).
> 
>  It is a set theoretic version of something between RA and PA.
> 
> It is a universal machinery with its universal machines, and all others.
> 
> It is a what I call a universal number. Each one has its application and 
> purpose “in life”.
> 
> God loves them all
> 
> (I guess)
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 22 May 2019, at 22:08, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Finitist Set Theory
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory>
>> 
>> "The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
>> model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
>> by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
>> are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
>> which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only 
>> those elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed 
>> by the selected axioms: only those urs [ 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement> ] exist which are stated to exist 
>> by assigning their number, and only those sets exist which are constructed 
>> by the selected axioms; no other elements exist in addition to these."
>> 
>> From:
>> Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
>> Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
>> Applied Ontology  (2018)
>> 
>> Abstract
>> "This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
>> applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a straightforward 
>> foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations between individuals 
>> but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. Traditional set theories 
>> are capable of modeling transitive and antitransitive chains of relations, 
>> but due to their function as foundations of mathematics they come with 
>> features that make them unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite 
>> structures. FST has been designed to function as a practical tool in 
>> modeling transitive and antitransitive chains of relations without suffering 
>> from difficulties of traditional set theories, and a major portion of the 
>> functionality of discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes 
>> FST a viable collection theory in ontological modeling."
>> 
>> 
>> Relation of finitist sets to processes:
>> 
>> The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
>> adapted from: 
>> - Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
>> representation of emergent parts of processes. 
>> - Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process theory. 
>> 
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory
>>  
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory>
>> 
>> "General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process ontology. 
>> According to GPT the domains of scientific inquiry and everyday practice 
>> consist of configurations of ‘goings-on’ or ‘dynamics’ that can be 
>> technically defined as concrete, dynamic, non-particular individuals called 
>> general processes. The paper offers a brief intr

Re: Finitist Set Theory

[Philip Thrift]

If you "combine" Finitist Set Theory with Locally Finite Theories, what you 
get is a version of Axiom of Infinity with "processes" creating bigger and 
bigger sets with gaps in them.

@philipthrift

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:34:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> This seems to be a strengthening of elementary finite set theory, which is 
> the theory of Zermelo minus the axiom of infinity.
>
> The theory of Zermelo is ZF without the Replacement Axioms (needed to 
> compare the well-ordering and the ordinals) and without the foundation 
> axioms (when we reject set belonging to themselves).
>
> I would not say that set theory is used for the foundation of mathematics. 
> It is mainly a theory on the infinities, lurking toward the inconsistent 
> big unnameable one. Sort of vertical theological shortcut. 
>
> Elementary finite set theory is Turing complete (Turing universal).
>
>  It is a set theoretic version of something between RA and PA.
>
> It is a universal machinery with its universal machines, and all others.
>
> It is a what I call a universal number. Each one has its application and 
> purpose “in life”.
>
> God loves them all
>
> (I guess)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On 22 May 2019, at 22:08, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
> Finitist Set Theory
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory
>
> "The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
> model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
> by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
> are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
> which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only 
> those elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed 
> by the selected axioms: only those urs [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ] exist which are stated to exist 
> by assigning their number, and only those sets exist which are constructed 
> by the selected axioms; no other elements exist in addition to these."
>
> From:
> Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
> Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
> Applied Ontology  (2018)
>
> Abstract
> "This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
> applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a 
> straightforward foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations 
> between individuals but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. 
> Traditional set theories are capable of modeling transitive and 
> antitransitive chains of relations, but due to their function as 
> foundations of mathematics they come with features that make them 
> unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite structures. FST has been 
> designed to function as a practical tool in modeling transitive and 
> antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from difficulties of 
> traditional set theories, and a major portion of the functionality of 
> discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes FST a viable 
> collection theory in ontological modeling."
>
>
> Relation of finitist sets to processes:
>
> The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
> adapted from: 
> - Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
> representation of emergent parts of processes. 
> - Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process 
> theory. 
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory
>
> "General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process 
> ontology. According to GPT the domains of scientific inquiry and everyday 
> practice consist of configurations of ‘goings-on’ or ‘dynamics’ that can be 
> technically defined as concrete, dynamic, non-particular individuals called 
> general processes. The paper offers a brief introduction to GPT in order to 
> provide ontological foundations for research programs such as interactivism 
> that centrally rely on the notions of ‘process,’ ‘interaction,’ and 
> ‘emergence.’ I begin with an analysis of our common sense concept of 
> activities, which plays a crucial heuristic role in the development of the 
> notion of a general process. General processes are not individuated in 
> terms of their location but in terms of ‘what they do,’ i.e., in terms of 
> their dynamic relationships in the basic sense of one process being part of 
> another. The formal framework of GPT is thus an extensional mereology, 
> albeit a non-classical theory with a non-transitive part-relation. After a 
> b

Re: Finitist Set Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

This seems to be a strengthening of elementary finite set theory, which is the 
theory of Zermelo minus the axiom of infinity.

The theory of Zermelo is ZF without the Replacement Axioms (needed to compare 
the well-ordering and the ordinals) and without the foundation axioms (when we 
reject set belonging to themselves).

I would not say that set theory is used for the foundation of mathematics. It 
is mainly a theory on the infinities, lurking toward the inconsistent big 
unnameable one. Sort of vertical theological shortcut. 

Elementary finite set theory is Turing complete (Turing universal).

 It is a set theoretic version of something between RA and PA.

It is a universal machinery with its universal machines, and all others.

It is a what I call a universal number. Each one has its application and 
purpose “in life”.

God loves them all

(I guess)

Bruno




> On 22 May 2019, at 22:08, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> Finitist Set Theory
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory
> 
> "The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
> model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
> by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
> are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
> which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only those 
> elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed by the 
> selected axioms: only those urs [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ] 
> exist which are stated to exist by assigning their number, and only those 
> sets exist which are constructed by the selected axioms; no other elements 
> exist in addition to these."
> 
> From:
> Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
> Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
> Applied Ontology  (2018)
> 
> Abstract
> "This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
> applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a straightforward 
> foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations between individuals 
> but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. Traditional set theories 
> are capable of modeling transitive and antitransitive chains of relations, 
> but due to their function as foundations of mathematics they come with 
> features that make them unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite 
> structures. FST has been designed to function as a practical tool in modeling 
> transitive and antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from 
> difficulties of traditional set theories, and a major portion of the 
> functionality of discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes 
> FST a viable collection theory in ontological modeling."
> 
> 
> Relation of finitist sets to processes:
> 
> The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
> adapted from: 
> - Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
> representation of emergent parts of processes. 
> - Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process theory. 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory
> 
> "General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process ontology. 
> According to GPT the domains of scientific inquiry and everyday practice 
> consist of configurations of ‘goings-on’ or ‘dynamics’ that can be 
> technically defined as concrete, dynamic, non-particular individuals called 
> general processes. The paper offers a brief introduction to GPT in order to 
> provide ontological foundations for research programs such as interactivism 
> that centrally rely on the notions of ‘process,’ ‘interaction,’ and 
> ‘emergence.’ I begin with an analysis of our common sense concept of 
> activities, which plays a crucial heuristic role in the development of the 
> notion of a general process. General processes are not individuated in terms 
> of their location but in terms of ‘what they do,’ i.e., in terms of their 
> dynamic relationships in the basic sense of one process being part of 
> another. The formal framework of GPT is thus an extensional mereology, albeit 
> a non-classical theory with a non-transitive part-relation. After a brief 
> sketch of basic notions and strategies of the GPT-framework I show how the 
> latter may be applied to distinguish between causal, mechanistic, functional, 
> self-maintaining, and recursively self-maintaining interactions, all of which 
> involve ‘emergent phenomena’ in various senses of the term."
> 
> cf. Locally Finite Theories
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2273942
> 
> @philipthrift
&

Finitist Set Theory

[Philip Thrift]

Finitist Set Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory

"The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only 
those elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed 
by the selected axioms: only those urs [ 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ] exist which are stated to exist 
by assigning their number, and only those sets exist which are constructed 
by the selected axioms; no other elements exist in addition to these."

From:
Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
Applied Ontology  (2018)

Abstract
"This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a 
straightforward foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations 
between individuals but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. 
Traditional set theories are capable of modeling transitive and 
antitransitive chains of relations, but due to their function as 
foundations of mathematics they come with features that make them 
unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite structures. FST has been 
designed to function as a practical tool in modeling transitive and 
antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from difficulties of 
traditional set theories, and a major portion of the functionality of 
discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes FST a viable 
collection theory in ontological modeling."


Relation of finitist sets to processes:

The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
adapted from: 
- Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
representation of emergent parts of processes. 
- Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process 
theory. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory

"General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process ontology. 
According to GPT the domains of scientific inquiry and everyday practice 
consist of configurations of ‘goings-on’ or ‘dynamics’ that can be 
technically defined as concrete, dynamic, non-particular individuals called 
general processes. The paper offers a brief introduction to GPT in order to 
provide ontological foundations for research programs such as interactivism 
that centrally rely on the notions of ‘process,’ ‘interaction,’ and 
‘emergence.’ I begin with an analysis of our common sense concept of 
activities, which plays a crucial heuristic role in the development of the 
notion of a general process. General processes are not individuated in 
terms of their location but in terms of ‘what they do,’ i.e., in terms of 
their dynamic relationships in the basic sense of one process being part of 
another. The formal framework of GPT is thus an extensional mereology, 
albeit a non-classical theory with a non-transitive part-relation. After a 
brief sketch of basic notions and strategies of the GPT-framework I show 
how the latter may be applied to distinguish between causal, mechanistic, 
functional, self-maintaining, and recursively self-maintaining 
interactions, all of which involve ‘emergent phenomena’ in various senses 
of the term."

cf. Locally Finite Theories
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2273942

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e50b919-7aff-4811-a230-e1eb771e9cf6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Samiya Illias]

 On 03-May-2015, at 8:31 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
 John M,
 What use will your agnosticism be to you if there will be a reckoning?
 
 What use will your faith be to you if you have chosen the wrong one? 
 
 That is why we must believe our heart with all our mind! 
 
 But there are others who believe their heart with all their minds and you 
 consider them to be wrong. 
 
What guarantee is there that I'm exclusively right and all others wrong? As 
long as we all sincerely seek the truth, are humbly open to guidance, and 
honestly share our perception of truth, I'm quite convinced that God will bless 
us according to His Wisdom and Magnanimity. 

 
 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Fwd: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','samiyaill...@gmail.com'); wrote:



 On 03-May-2015, at 8:31 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 John M,
 What use will your agnosticism be to you if there will be a reckoning?


 What use will your faith be to you if you have chosen the wrong one?


 That is why we must believe our heart with all our mind!


 But there are others who believe their heart with all their minds and you
 consider them to be wrong.

 What guarantee is there that I'm exclusively right and all others wrong?
 As long as we all sincerely seek the truth, are humbly open to guidance,
 and honestly share our perception of truth, I'm quite convinced that God
 will bless us according to His Wisdom and Magnanimity.


So you admit that, although you think you are probably right, it's possible
you are wrong and the Quran is just a fantasy?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Samiya Illias]

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:



 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 03-May-2015, at 8:31 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 John M,
 What use will your agnosticism be to you if there will be a reckoning?


 What use will your faith be to you if you have chosen the wrong one?


 That is why we must believe our heart with all our mind!


 But there are others who believe their heart with all their minds and you
 consider them to be wrong.

 What guarantee is there that I'm exclusively right and all others wrong?
 As long as we all sincerely seek the truth, are humbly open to guidance,
 and honestly share our perception of truth, I'm quite convinced that God
 will bless us according to His Wisdom and Magnanimity.


 So you admit that, although you think you are probably right, it's
 possible you are wrong and the Quran is just a fantasy?


From a non-Muslim perspective, that is quite possible. My heart testifies
that it is indeed a message from the Lord of the Worlds, so I study it and
I try to follow it and I share it as I understand it.
I had earlier sent two responses (two emails) to your initial question, I'm
reposting it here in case you missed it:

What use will your faith be to you if you have chosen the wrong one?

 First response: That is why we must believe our heart with all our mind!
Second response: And of course keep praying for the right guidance and
forgiveness.
[Al-Qur'an, 5:69, Translator: Pickthall]  Lo! those who believe, and those
who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah
and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them
neither shall they grieve.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5verse=69

Samiya




 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 3 May 2015 at 17:53, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 So you admit that, although you think you are probably right, it's
 possible you are wrong and the Quran is just a fantasy?


 From a non-Muslim perspective, that is quite possible. My heart testifies
 that it is indeed a message from the Lord of the Worlds, so I study it and I
 try to follow it and I share it as I understand it.

Is it possible that your belief in A is wrong?
From a non-A-believer perspective, it is possible my belief in A is
wrong, but my heart testifies that it is right.

Why not simply say it is possible my belief in A is wrong?

 I had earlier sent two responses (two emails) to your initial question, I'm
 reposting it here in case you missed it:

 What use will your faith be to you if you have chosen the wrong one?

 First response: That is why we must believe our heart with all our mind!
 Second response: And of course keep praying for the right guidance and
 forgiveness.
 [Al-Qur'an, 5:69, Translator: Pickthall]  Lo! those who believe, and those
 who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah
 and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them
 neither shall they grieve.
 http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5verse=69

I saw your responses but they beg the question. The problem is that if
faith is a valid way of arriving at truth, then everyone's faith is
equally valid.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[LizR]

On 4 May 2015 at 12:25, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:


 I saw your responses but they beg the question. The problem is that if
 faith is a valid way of arriving at truth, then everyone's faith is
 equally valid.

 It also indicates that dogs know far more truth than humans.

(Actually Raymond Smullyan said something rather similar, come to think of
it! )

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Samiya Illias]

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On 3 May 2015 at 17:53, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

  So you admit that, although you think you are probably right, it's
  possible you are wrong and the Quran is just a fantasy?
 
 
  From a non-Muslim perspective, that is quite possible. My heart testifies
  that it is indeed a message from the Lord of the Worlds, so I study it
 and I
  try to follow it and I share it as I understand it.

 Is it possible that your belief in A is wrong?
 From a non-A-believer perspective, it is possible my belief in A is
 wrong, but my heart testifies that it is right.

 Why not simply say it is possible my belief in A is wrong?


I did start off my reply with that, but it just did not ring true. It felt
more like stating something agreeable even though I'm convinced otherwise,
hence I reworded it. I do understand your position, and I might have agreed
with it a while back...
You see, when one comes to faith, one really believes that it is the truth
(believe our heart) and then one questions, not to refute but to comprehend
(with all our mind!). Then God helps us comprehend the scripture by
providing us with some knowledge, and then what previously read as fantasy
transforms into a fantastic rendition of reality!
For example, I was always perplexed by the verses about Dhu-al-Qarnayn and
his visit to the place of the setting of the sun and then to the place of
rising of the sun... asked Muslim scholars, wasn't convinced by their
explanations, read non-Muslims' ridicule of the Qur'an based upon these
verses, felt something amiss,... then God blessed me, made me think about
the polar regions and helped me connect the dots between modern scientific
knowledge and the verses, so now from what previously made 'no sense', the
same verses make now make 'perfect sense' to me:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html

Or for instance, the story of Moses' travel and the fish that escaped
miraculously:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/miraculous-subterranean-escape-of-fish.html

When one is humbly open to all possibilities, then the scripture comes to
life and starts to impart valuable lessons:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/lessons-in-surah-al-kahf-cave.html

When one comes to realise the 'factual accuracy' of the scripture, then
there remains no difficulty in 'taking on faith' what it states about
Future Events: Resurrection and Hereafter. This and the related posts'
links on this blogpost might also be of interest:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/04/setting-of-stars.html
Then the realisation of the importance of our purpose here and the
preciousness of the time given to us here changes our focus from merely
academic / intellectual discussions of faith (Why) to the meaningful
actions of good deeds (the What to Do and How to Do it)!
One also comes to understand that faith is not about the 'brand' of
religion you admit to, but rather its deeply seated within and is available
to all who earnestly seek. Scriptures and Messengers have been sent before
Muhammad to other regions and peoples, and all stand an equal chance before
the Most Just God, who invites us to assess ourselves and do good so that
we can be blessed with a happy ever-after, and warns of the consequence of
wasting the precious time we've been given here on Earth:
Translator: Sahih International
[O Muhammad], inform My servants that it is I who am the Forgiving, the
Merciful. And that it is My punishment which is the painful punishment.
http://quran.com/15/49-50


Samiya


  I had earlier sent two responses (two emails) to your initial question,
 I'm
  reposting it here in case you missed it:
 
  What use will your faith be to you if you have chosen the wrong one?
 
  First response: That is why we must believe our heart with all our mind!
  Second response: And of course keep praying for the right guidance and
  forgiveness.
  [Al-Qur'an, 5:69, Translator: Pickthall]  Lo! those who believe, and
 those
  who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah
  and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them
  neither shall they grieve.
  http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5verse=69

 I saw your responses but they beg the question. The problem is that if
 faith is a valid way of arriving at truth, then everyone's faith is
 equally valid.


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are 

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 May 2015, at 21:07, Samiya Illias wrote:





On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote:

Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)

Brent


 Forwarded Message 

https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx

Mathematics

The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life

Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics  
is a
creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_  
teaches

that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God


No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it.


Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I  
gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant  
being,


I feel like I answered this already. my god is not very weak, it is  
just not omniscient nor omnipotent, but it can be said to know quite a  
lot (arithmetical truth).


And it is relevant at all moment. In a sense, it is the only real  
thing, but it is out of the relm of beings, also, like in the  
neoplatonist theologies, where both God and Matter are out of the  
creation, which is a pure intelligible thing, and nothing else.






perhaps of just some academic historical interest.  However, here  
you speak again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith.


Yes, but keep in mind that I assume computationalism, even a classical  
version of it (with knowledge defined by the modal logic S4). This  
entails that asserting propositions of G* \ G, like if they belong to  
G, are blaspheme. And yes, G* \minus G requires faith.





For a comparison, here is my concept of God:
Holy Quran 39:67
--
وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ  
قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا  
قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ  
وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ  
بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ  
وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ


They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth  
entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and  
the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high  
above what they associate with Him.


Out of context, this might be a blasphem too. How can a human evaluate  
if God is high above them? Well, it can, like a machine can find out  
the proposition of G* minus G. But there is a hell of difficulties and  
dangers in communicating them. It is more like a personal experience,  
and it is perhaps not suitable to interpret them in a de dicto manner.  
Theology is always on the verge of making people falling in a trap, a  
bit like a machine might wrongly infer than the G* proposition applies  
necessarily to her: it is a sin of vanity, somehow, and in the world  
of ideal machines, that is a fatal mistake.


Bruno







Samiya



What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods  
(creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the  
notion of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of  
parmenides, Plotinus, and other theoricians, in a different  
approach to matter and mind.


I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you  
describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science  
and religion. It is the opposite, a priori.





and thus absolute.
Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the  
universe,

both scientific and mathematical.


That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.





_A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH  
AS SET

THEORY.


The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the  
permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which  
Cantor refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already  
saying too much).
I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are  
excellent mathematical tools, that's for sure.




These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for  
life, A

Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see  
mathematical

facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.


Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if  
there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real  
universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is.  
All I say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe,  
it is an immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in  
the head of all universal machine (and the Lobian can know that  
and describe it, even, with caution, a part of the non communicable  
part).


Bruno



As noted on
http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html



- End forwarded message -

--
You received

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[John Mikes]

Dear Quentin, thanks for your reflection -  B U T  
let me not go into it for several reasons.
1. I am not a believer (have no faith)
2. I am not an atheist (I am an agnostic).
3. I did not want to identify 'blasphemy
4. I did not want to identify God either.
5. I am also agnostic about the Scripts.
So ---   PEACE!
John Mikes

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:



 2015-05-01 21:32 GMT+02:00 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:

 Dear Samiya,

 Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your
 question is funny (in my views):

   * Bruno, what is your concept of God? ... *

 Accepting a 'God' concept in your (Quran extracted?) terms, such a
 concept of the infinite (some call it Supernatural) Creator, Maintenant,
 Director, Motor, etc. etc. of the World  (of the Everything) is way beyond
 our capability of thinking, so we cannot even approach a fitting 'concept'
 of such term.


 Some say logic is above it, so we can have a concept of it (and discuss
 about what attributes it has or not)... so, either we can talk meaningfully
 about it, either we can't, so as everything we say (about it or not) is
 meaningless.


 We can quote from Script, or just mumble our ignorance and argue
 endlessly - without merit. All the rest may be what you can call blaspheme.


 It seems, as faith is defined, either your truly has it (faith), either
 whatever you say is blasphemy.

 Quentin



 I even put the 'mind-body' concept into limbo, *mind being unidentified
 and the body* a figment of our poorly observed (some) phenomena we got
 so far - called 'science'.

 John M

 On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:



  On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
  On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote:
 
  Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)
 
  Brent
 
 
   Forwarded Message 
 
  https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx
 
  Mathematics
 
  The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life
 
  Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
  creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches
  that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God
 
  No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it.

 Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I
 gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant being,
 perhaps of just some academic historical interest.  However, here you speak
 again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith.
 For a comparison, here is my concept of God:
 Holy Quran 39:67
 --
 وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ
 يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ
 وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

 They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth
 entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the
 heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what
 they associate with Him.

 Samiya

 
  What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods
 (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion
 of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus,
 and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
  I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you
 describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and
 religion. It is the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
  and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.
 
  That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS
 SET
  THEORY.
 
  The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the
 permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor
 refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much).
  I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent
 mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
  These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for
 life, A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see
 mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
  Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if
 there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real
 universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I
 say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Samiya Illias]

 appraisal, while the earth
 entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the
 heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what
 they associate with Him.

 Samiya

 
  What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods
 (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion
 of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus,
 and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
  I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you
 describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and
 religion. It is the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
  and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.
 
  That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS
 SET
  THEORY.
 
  The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the
 permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor
 refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much).
  I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent
 mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
  These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for
 life, A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see
 mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
  Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if
 there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real
 universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I
 say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an
 immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all
 universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with
 caution, a part of the non communicable part).
 
  Bruno
 
 
  As noted on
  http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
 
 
 
  - End forwarded message -
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Samiya Illias]

 necessarily presumes faith.
 For a comparison, here is my concept of God:
 Holy Quran 39:67
 --
 وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ
 يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ 
 سُبْحَانَهُ
 وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

 They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth
 entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the
 heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above 
 what
 they associate with Him.

 Samiya

 
  What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods
 (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion
 of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus,
 and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
  I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you
 describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and
 religion. It is the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
  and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the
 universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.
 
  That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable
 traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH
 AS SET
  THEORY.
 
  The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the
 permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor
 refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much).
  I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are
 excellent mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
  These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for
 life, A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe
 in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see
 mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
  Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if
 there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real
 universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I
 say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an
 immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all
 universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, 
 with
 caution, a part of the non communicable part).
 
  Bruno
 
 
  As noted on
 
 http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
 
 
 
  - End forwarded message -
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 .
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Stathis Papaioannou]

 
 being,
 perhaps of just some academic historical interest.  However, here you 
 speak
 again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith.
 For a comparison, here is my concept of God:
 Holy Quran 39:67
 --
 وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ
 يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ
 وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

 They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth
 entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the
 heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above 
 what
 they associate with Him.

 Samiya

 
  What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods
 (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion
 of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus,
 and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
  I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you
 describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and
 religion. It is the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
  and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the
 universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.
 
  That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH
 AS SET
  THEORY.
 
  The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the
 permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor
 refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much).
  I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent
 mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
  These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for
 life, A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see
 mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
  Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if
 there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real
 universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I
 say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an
 immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all
 universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, 
 with
 caution, a part of the non communicable part).
 
  Bruno
 
 
  As noted on
 
 http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
 
 
 
  - End forwarded message -
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');
 .
  To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com');.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');
 .
  To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com');.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');
 .
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com');.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');
 .
 To post

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Samiya Illias]

 believe that mathematics
 is a
  creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_
 teaches
  that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God
 
  No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it.

 Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I
 gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant 
 being,
 perhaps of just some academic historical interest.  However, here you 
 speak
 again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith.
 For a comparison, here is my concept of God:
 Holy Quran 39:67
 --
 وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا
 قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ 
 ۚ
 سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

 They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth
 entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the
 heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above 
 what
 they associate with Him.

 Samiya

 
  What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods
 (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the 
 notion
 of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus,
 and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
  I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you
 describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and
 religion. It is the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
  and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the
 universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.
 
  That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable
 traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH
 AS SET
  THEORY.
 
  The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the
 permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor
 refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too 
 much).
  I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are
 excellent mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
  These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for
 life, A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe
 in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see
 mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
  Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know
 if there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real
 universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All 
 I
 say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an
 immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all
 universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, 
 with
 caution, a part of the non communicable part).
 
  Bruno
 
 
  As noted on
 
 http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
 
 
 
  - End forwarded message -
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 .
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); wrote:



 On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','samiyaill...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 John M,
 What use will your agnosticism be to you if there will be a reckoning?


 What use will your faith be to you if you have chosen the wrong one?


 That is why we must believe our heart with all our mind!


But there are others who believe their heart with all their minds and you
consider them to be wrong.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Alberto G. Corona]

Set theory is not about sets, but about deriving every other mathematics
mathematical structures from sets. It is quite cumbresome and theoretical
and does not use the natural mathematical intuitions. And thus it is not
appropriate or teaching kids. And yet is is used for teaching since the
rationalist/blank slate pedagogy thinks that kids are like void databases
that must be feed with sets of rules.

These horrible kind of mathematical teaching books that have destroyed the
pedagogy of mathematics were called at his time modern mathematics.

2015-05-01 5:50 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

 Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)

 Brent


  Forwarded Message 

 https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx

   Mathematics

   The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life

   Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
   creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches
   that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute.
   Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
   both scientific and mathematical.

   _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
   mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET
   THEORY. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
   successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
   appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A
   Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
   absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical
   facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.

 As noted on
 http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html



 - End forwarded message -

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote:


Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)

Brent


 Forwarded Message 

https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx

 Mathematics

 The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life

 Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
 creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_  
teaches

 that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God


No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it.

What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods  
(creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the  
notion of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides,  
Plotinus, and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and  
mind.


I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you  
describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and  
religion. It is the opposite, a priori.





and thus absolute.
 Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
 both scientific and mathematical.


That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.





 _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
 mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH  
AS SET

 THEORY.


The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the  
permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which  
Cantor refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying  
too much).
I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent  
mathematical tools, that's for sure.




These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
 successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
 appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for  
life, A

 Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
 absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see  
mathematical

 facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.


Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if  
there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real  
universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is.  
All I say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it  
is an immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the  
head of all universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and  
describe it, even, with caution, a part of the non communicable part).


Bruno



As noted on
http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html



- End forwarded message -

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya,

Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your
question is funny (in my views):

  * Bruno, what is your concept of God? ... *

Accepting a 'God' concept in your (Quran extracted?) terms, such a concept
of the infinite (some call it Supernatural) Creator, Maintenant, Director,
Motor, etc. etc. of the World  (of the Everything) is way beyond our
capability of thinking, so we cannot even approach a fitting 'concept' of
such term. We can quote from Script, or just mumble our ignorance and argue
endlessly - without merit. All the rest may be what you can call blaspheme.

I even put the 'mind-body' concept into limbo, *mind being unidentified and
the body* a figment of our poorly observed (some) phenomena we got so far -
called 'science'.

John M

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:



  On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
  On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote:
 
  Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)
 
  Brent
 
 
   Forwarded Message 
 
  https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx
 
  Mathematics
 
  The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life
 
  Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
  creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches
  that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God
 
  No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it.

 Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I
 gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant being,
 perhaps of just some academic historical interest.  However, here you speak
 again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith.
 For a comparison, here is my concept of God:
 Holy Quran 39:67
 --
 وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ
 يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ
 وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

 They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth
 entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the
 heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what
 they associate with Him.

 Samiya

 
  What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods
 (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion
 of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus,
 and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
  I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you
 describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and
 religion. It is the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
  and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.
 
  That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET
  THEORY.
 
  The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the
 permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor
 refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much).
  I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent
 mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
  These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
  Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if
 there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real
 universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I
 say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an
 immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all
 universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with
 caution, a part of the non communicable part).
 
  Bruno
 
 
  As noted on
  http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
 
 
 
  - End forwarded message -
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
  --
  You received this message

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Samiya Illias]

 On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote:
 
 Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)
 
 Brent
 
 
  Forwarded Message 
 
 https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx
 
 Mathematics
 
 The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life
 
 Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
 creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches
 that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God
 
 No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it.

Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I gathered 
that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant being, perhaps of 
just some academic historical interest.  However, here you speak again of 
blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith.  
For a comparison, here is my concept of God: 
Holy Quran 39:67
--
وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ 
الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ 
عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely 
will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be 
folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with 
Him.

Samiya 

 
 What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods (creator 
 and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion of 
 Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus, and 
 other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
 I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you describe 
 here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and religion. It is 
 the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
 and thus absolute.
 Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
 both scientific and mathematical.
 
 That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
 _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
 mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET
 THEORY.
 
 The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the permission to 
 name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor refer as the great 
 inconsistent (which might be already saying too much).
 I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent 
 mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
 These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
 successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
 appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A
 Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
 absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical
 facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
 Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if there is 
 a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real universe of some 
 sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I say, is that if comp 
 is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an immaterial thing which is 
 already in your head, and in the head of all universal machine (and the 
 Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with caution, a part of the non 
 communicable part).
 
 Bruno
 
 
 As noted on
 http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
 
 
 
 - End forwarded message -
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Alberto G. Corona]

It may be even worst

http://tldrify.com/8hh

modern mathematical methods is nothing more than the deliberate destruction
of teaching that has happened in every other discipline.

Really I don´t think that progressivism of communism is the cause but one
of the effects of a wider evil mindset that apply to all kind of elitists
or sectarian ideology:

This mindset is the one of the people that reason this way: Since knowledge
is power, let´s keep this power for ourselves, let´s dumb-down every other
to avoid their political and technical competence.  Let´s stop education
since this is the conveyor belt of social mobility and this is dangerous
for Us, the chosen ones. That way we will be safely above and they will be
ever below. For their own good, of course. We only want to make a better
world (Laughing out loud)

2015-05-01 9:14 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:

 Set theory is not about sets, but about deriving every other mathematics
 mathematical structures from sets. It is quite cumbresome and theoretical
 and does not use the natural mathematical intuitions. And thus it is not
 appropriate or teaching kids. And yet is is used for teaching since the
 rationalist/blank slate pedagogy thinks that kids are like void databases
 that must be feed with sets of rules.

 These horrible kind of mathematical teaching books that have destroyed the
 pedagogy of mathematics were called at his time modern mathematics.

 2015-05-01 5:50 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

 Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)

 Brent


  Forwarded Message 

 https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx

   Mathematics

   The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life

   Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
   creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches
   that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute.
   Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
   both scientific and mathematical.

   _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
   mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET
   THEORY. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
   successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
   appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A
   Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
   absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical
   facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.

 As noted on
 http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html



 - End forwarded message -

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




 --
 Alberto.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[Quentin Anciaux]

2015-05-01 21:32 GMT+02:00 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:

 Dear Samiya,

 Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your
 question is funny (in my views):

   * Bruno, what is your concept of God? ... *

 Accepting a 'God' concept in your (Quran extracted?) terms, such a concept
 of the infinite (some call it Supernatural) Creator, Maintenant, Director,
 Motor, etc. etc. of the World  (of the Everything) is way beyond our
 capability of thinking, so we cannot even approach a fitting 'concept' of
 such term.


Some say logic is above it, so we can have a concept of it (and discuss
about what attributes it has or not)... so, either we can talk meaningfully
about it, either we can't, so as everything we say (about it or not) is
meaningless.


 We can quote from Script, or just mumble our ignorance and argue endlessly
 - without merit. All the rest may be what you can call blaspheme.


It seems, as faith is defined, either your truly has it (faith), either
whatever you say is blasphemy.

Quentin



 I even put the 'mind-body' concept into limbo, *mind being unidentified
 and the body* a figment of our poorly observed (some) phenomena we got so
 far - called 'science'.

 John M

 On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:



  On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
  On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote:
 
  Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)
 
  Brent
 
 
   Forwarded Message 
 
  https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx
 
  Mathematics
 
  The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life
 
  Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
  creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches
  that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God
 
  No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it.

 Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I
 gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant being,
 perhaps of just some academic historical interest.  However, here you speak
 again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith.
 For a comparison, here is my concept of God:
 Holy Quran 39:67
 --
 وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ
 يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ
 وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

 They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth
 entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the
 heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what
 they associate with Him.

 Samiya

 
  What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods
 (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion
 of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus,
 and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind.
 
  I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you
 describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and
 religion. It is the opposite, a priori.
 
 
 
  and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.
 
  That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting.
 
 
 
 
  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS
 SET
  THEORY.
 
  The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the
 permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor
 refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much).
  I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent
 mathematical tools, that's for sure.
 
 
  These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life,
 A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see
 mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.
 
  Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if
 there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real
 universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I
 say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an
 immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all
 universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with
 caution, a part of the non communicable part).
 
  Bruno
 
 
  As noted on
  http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html
 
 
 
  - End forwarded message -
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups

Fwd: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

[meekerdb]

Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-)

Brent


 Forwarded Message 

https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx

  Mathematics

  The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life

  Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a
  creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches
  that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute.
  Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe,
  both scientific and mathematical.

  _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional
  mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET
  THEORY. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used
  successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date
  appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A
  Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in
  absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical
  facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe.

As noted on
http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html



- End forwarded message -

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Set theory Undermines Theism

[Richard Ruquist]

Taxpayers fund creationism in the classroom
About that Taxpayer Funded Creationism: Why Set Theory??
Some fine Daily Kos diarists, as well as the estimable Charles P. Pierce at
Esquire, have highlighted the new article in Politico today called
Taxpayers fund creationism in the classroom...
In addition to the now-customary attacks on biological evolution, the
article refers to other domains of modern knowledge that are considered
suspect by the religious, including areas of modern mathematics, and in
particular, set theory.  Now I've seen this article linked on a few other
lefty blogs I read in addition to Mr. Pierce, as well as by several friends
on Facebook, and
the usual response to the sentences about modern math are generally met
with a comment like Creationists are so dumb they probably still think
Pi=3!.  But the fact that the article specifically singles out set
theory immediately jumped out at me, and for reasons which I would like
to explore below the fleur-de-Kos, I think signifies something rather
more important than many of us are giving it credit for.  I
would like to share directly with the DKos community something I wrote
earlier on the Esquire piece...
I would like to offer an somewhat-informed opinion on the whole math
 set theory thing, on the basis that if we are to be forced to
debate these kinds of people, we should understand what it is they're
really on about. I'm sure the creationist doesn't deny carry the five
type
arithmetic. Since the article specifically mentions set theory, allow me to
posit something related to that which I have noticed cropping up a
great deal in the modern Christian apologetics movement, particularly
propounded by such folks as William Lane Craig (and I apologize but this
comment is of necessity going to be kinda long)
Craig is the leading proponent of the so-called Kalam Cosmological
Argument which uses some propositions based on formal logic and a lot of
sophistry to deduce therefore God did it. One of the supporting legs
of this argument is the essential impossibility of a real infinity, and
to explain this Craig uses a thought experiment known as Hilbert's Hotel
(named for English mathematician David Hilbert)
The essence of Hilbert's Hotel is really an argument drawing from set
theory, much like the following: take the set (or grouping) of normal
positive integers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 10... 27 ... a billion...). It
goes on forever, there are an infinite number of positive integers. Now
consider the set of positive EVEN integers (integers evenly divisible by 2:
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, ... a billion...). Are there fewer even integers than
positive integers (even  odd)? There are an infinite number
of members of both sets, but in some sense there's only half as many
even integers... or alternately you could think of it as you get the set of
evens by taking away the set of odds (1, 3, 5, 7, ... also an
infinite set) away from the set of all integers. But in fact there are
EXACTLY the same number of even integers as odd integers as all
integers. How to prove it? You can map every single integer to every
single even integer simply by doubling it: 1:2, 2:4, 3:6, 4:8, etc. In
this way you can see that there must be one, and ONLY one, corresponding
even integer to every member of the integer set we started with.
Therefore the two sets must be exactly the same size.
But does this work for all real numbers? Real numbers include both
integers and fractions and irrational numbers (numbers that can't be
represented exactly as a fraction, such as Pi and the square root of 2). Is
the infinity of real numbers the same size as the infinity of
integers? As it turns out, no, it's not, it's a BIGGER infinity. Georg
Cantor proved this again using this concept of mapping from one set to the
other, and you CANNOT find a mapping which will include all possible real
numbers. (check the links for the details or read the classic Gödel,
Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstader (where I was first introduced to these
ideas back
in college). Because of this difference the infinity of real numbers is
not denoted by the familiar sideways 8 character, but by the hebrew
letter Aleph.
Now how does this relate to Craig and creationism? Because the
knowledge that there are higher order infinities which cannot be mapped
in the simple way I described undermines the Hilbert Hotel argument,
which is part of the underpinning of the Kalam Cosmological model which
serves as a smart-sounding philosophical proof of the necessity of
God.
I first came to understand this when I came upon a William Lane
Craig and Hilbert's Hotel video on Youtube a while back, and tried to
explain this in the comments: whereupon I was met with responses along
the lines of Hurr Durr Infinity is the biggest there is you are stupid and
Craig has a PhD before I was blocked from the channel.
I am far, far more annoyed and frightened by guys like Craig than I
am by armies of Ken Hams (owner of the Creation Museum and recent
debate opponent

Re: An old White Rabbit attempted solution - set to music

[LizR]

Is that supposed to be sung to the tune of white rabbit by Jefferson
airplane?

(I often do that to things I read anyway...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

An old White Rabbit attempted solution - set to music

[Gabriel Bodeen]

Greetings,

I came here after reading and being intrigued by Russell Standish's book.  
I just thought I'd share one bit of fun before I go into lurker mode. It's 
a little ditty about Kant's philosophy.  I remembered it after reading the 
book because it sounds very similar to some of the anthropic ideas and 
White Rabbit problem solutions.

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kant.htm

THE TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION
of the Pure Concepts of Understanding

by Immanuel Kant
Translation by Roderick T. Long
Music and vocals by Paul L. Fine

Let us first divide cognition into rational analysis
and sensory perception (which Descartes considered valueless).
Now reason gives us concepts which are true but tautological;
sensation gives us images whose content is phenomenal.

Whatever greets our senses must exist in space and time
for else it would be nowhere and nowhen and therefore slime;
the space and time we presuppose before we sense reality
must have innate subjective transcendental ideality.

Thus space and time
are forms of our perception
whereby sensation’s synthesized in orderly array;
the same must hold
for rational conception:
in everything we think, the laws of logic must hold sway.

But a problem here arises with respect to natural science:
while empirical in method, on pure thought it lays reliance.
Although for Newton’s findings we to Newton give the glory
Newton never could have found them if they weren’t known a priori.

We know that nature governed is by principles immutable
but how we come to know this is inherently inscrutable;
that thought requires logic is a standpoint unassailable
but for objects of our senses explanations aren’t available.

So let's attempt
to vivisect cognition
by critical analysis in hope that we may find
the link between
pure thought and intuition:
a deduction transcendental will shed light upon the mind.

You may recall that space and time are forms of apprehension
and therefore what we sense has spatiotemporal extension;
whatever is extended is composed of a plurality
but through an act of synthesis we form a commonality.

If we are to be conscious of a single concrete entity
each part of its extension must be given independently
combining in a transcendental apperceptive unity
to which I may ascribe the term “self-conscious” with impunity.

The order of
our various sensations
arises from connections not beheld in sense alone;
our self creates
the rules of their relations
and of this combination it is conscious as its own.

While these rules correspond to scientific causal laws
the question of their constancy remains to give us pause;
but once we recollect the source of our self-conscious mind,
to this perverse dilemma a solution we may find.

The self is nothing but its act of synthesis sublime;
this act must be the same to be self-conscious over time.
The rules for combination of its selfhood form the ground
so what we perceive tomorrow by today’s laws must be bound.

These constant laws
whereby we shape experience
are simply those which regulate our reason: that is plain.
So don’t ask why
the stars display invariance --
the Cosmos is produced by your disoriented brain! 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

That the universe is not substantial, but only a set of experimental protocols

[Roger Clough]

That the universe is ultimately mathematical

My proposal is that the universe can ultimately only be described
pragmatically-- that is, in mathematical terms, by its experimental behavior. 
That matter itself is only a logical implication derived experimentally
by cause and effect. Which means that force and mass have no absolute values. 
That is, a force of a relative value F is produced if we
accelerate a body with mass m of relative value m with accelerastion a.
And that distance and time are given relatuive values to accord
with such a measurement.

This of course is how we originally determined what mass is -- by a measurement
and then reified the experimental results as mass and force., but
these entities have no substantial definition other than such reifications.



Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/4/2013 
See my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Arithmetic as true constructions of a fictional leggo set

[Roger Clough]

On 24 Dec 2012, at 15:35, Roger Clough wrote:  


ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal   

It helps me if I can understand arithmetic as true   
constructions of a fictional leggo set.  


BRUNO: Why fictional? Immaterial OK, but ffictional?  


ROGER: Sorry, fictional was the wrong word, it just came to mind but was wrong. 
  
Immaterial is right. 

(from before) 
From what you say, the natural numbers and + and * (nn+*).  


BRUNO: What is (nn+*)?  


ROGER: By (nn+*) I meant the natural numbers and + and *  


(from before)  

are not a priori members of Platonia (if indeed that makes  
sense anyway).   


BRUNO: They are. Either as basic citizens, or as existing object if we start  
with a universal system different from arithmetic, but in all  
case all truth about all digital machines are a priori members in all Platonia 
rich enough for comp.  


ROGER: OK, I misunderstood what you said previously. 


(from before) 
They can simply be invoked and used   
as needed, as long as they don't produce contradictions.  


BRUNO: Alas, after G?el that is not enough. In arithmetic you can depart  
a lot from truth, and still be consistent.  


ROGER: (from before) 

That being the case, don't you need to add =, - ,  and   
/ to the Leggo set ? Then we have (nn+-*/=).  


BRUNO: =  is there. But - and all other computable function and programs  
can be defined from the axioms I gave, + a very small amount of logical axioms. 
 
If you want I can give explicit presentation(s) some day.  

ROGER: Thanks, but right now I am already so far behind. 

I wonder if somebody could derive string theory from this set.   


BRUNO: Trivially, in a weak sense of string theory.  
Non trivially, in the stronger sense as deriving string theory,  
and only string theory from comp. That should be the case if  
string theory is the ultimate correct theory of the physical.  


ROGER: Then we might say that the universe is an arithmetic construction.   
Probably an absurd idea.  


Actually yes. As comp implies that physics, although derivable in arithmetic + 
comp,  
is not an arithmetical construction. We already know that arithmetical truth  
is not an arithmetical notion, so this should not be so astonishing.  


ROGER: (From before)  
Hi Bruno Marchal

No doubt you are right, except that the brain is physical,   
while, as I understand it, a UTM is mental.   


BRUNO: But the physical is mental, or immaterial, with comp. So, no problem :)  


I have to go for prepare Xmas, I have a lot of nephews and little nephews ...  


Happy Xmas to you Roger, and to everyone,  


Bruno  

-- 





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]   
12/24/2012   
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen   

- Receiving the following content -   
From: Bruno Marchal   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2012-12-23, 09:17:09   
Subject: Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.   




On 22 Dec 2012, at 17:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:   




Hi Bruno,   

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:   



 The infinite set of natural numbers is not stored on anything,   


Which causes no problem because there is not a infinite number of anything in 
the observable universe, probably not even points in space.   



Perhaps, we don't know.   
It causes no problem because natural numbers does not have to be stored a 
priori. Only when universal machine want to use them.   




Why do the natural numbers exist?   




We cannot know that.   


Precisely, if you assume the natural numbers, you can prove that you cannot 
derived the existence of the natural number and their + and * laws, in *any* 
theory which does not assume them, or does not assume something equivalent.   


That is why it is a good reason to start with them (or equivalent).   


Somehow, the natural numbers, with addition and multiplication, are necessarily 
mysterious.   


With the natural numbers and + and *, you can prove the existence of all 
universal machines, and vice versa, if you assume any other universal system 
(like the combinators K, S (K K), (K S), ...) you can prove the existence of 
the natural numbers and their laws.   


We have to assume at least one universal system, and I chose arithmetic because 
it is the simpler one. The problem is that the proof of its universality will 
be difficult, but at least it can be found in good mathematical logic textbook, 
like Mendelson or Kleene, etc.   


Bruno   










--   
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

Re: Arithmetic as true constructions of a fictional leggo set

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Dec 2012, at 15:35, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

It helps me if I can understand arithmetic as true
constructions of a fictional leggo set.


Why fictional? Immaterial OK, but ffictional?




From what you say, the natural numbers and + and * (nn+*).


What is (nn+*)?




are not a priori members of Platonia (if indeed that makes
sense anyway).


They are. Either as basic citizens, or as existing object if we start  
with a universal system different from arithmetic, but in all case all  
truth about all digital machines are a priori members in all Platonia  
rich enough for comp.





They can simply be invoked and used
as needed, as long as they don't produce contradictions.


Alas, after Gödel that is not enough. In arithmetic you can depart a  
lot from truth, and still be consistent.





That being the case, don't you need to add =, - ,  and
/ to the Leggo set ? Then we have (nn+-*/=).


=  is there. But - and all other computable function and programs  
can be defined from the axioms I gave, + a very small amount of  
logical axioms. If you want I can give explicit presentation(s) some  
day.






I wonder if somebody could derive string theory from this set.


Trivially, in a weak sense of string theory.
Non trivially, in the stronger sense as deriving string theory, and  
only string theory from comp. That should be the case if string theory  
is the ultimate correct theory of the physical.





Then we might say that the universe is an arithmetic construction.
Probably an absurd idea.


Actually yes. As comp implies that physics, although derivable in  
arithmetic + comp, is not an arithmetical construction. We already  
know that arithmetical truth is not an arithmetical notion, so this  
should not be so astonishing.



Hi Bruno Marchal

No doubt you are right, except that the brain is physical,
while, as I understand it, a UTM is mental.


But the physical is mental, or immaterial, with comp. So, no problem :)

I have to go for prepare Xmas, I have a lot of nephews and little  
nephews ...


Happy Xmas to you Roger, and to everyone,

Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-23, 09:17:09
Subject: Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.




On 22 Dec 2012, at 17:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:




Hi Bruno,

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:



 The infinite set of natural numbers is not stored on anything,


Which causes no problem because there is not a infinite number of  
anything in the observable universe, probably not even points in  
space.




Perhaps, we don't know.
It causes no problem because natural numbers does not have to be  
stored a priori. Only when universal machine want to use them.





Why do the natural numbers exist?




We cannot know that.


Precisely, if you assume the natural numbers, you can prove that you  
cannot derived the existence of the natural number and their + and *  
laws, in *any* theory which does not assume them, or does not assume  
something equivalent.



That is why it is a good reason to start with them (or equivalent).


Somehow, the natural numbers, with addition and multiplication, are  
necessarily mysterious.



With the natural numbers and + and *, you can prove the existence of  
all universal machines, and vice versa, if you assume any other  
universal system (like the combinators K, S (K K), (K S), ...) you  
can prove the existence of the natural numbers and their laws.



We have to assume at least one universal system, and I chose  
arithmetic because it is the simpler one. The problem is that the  
proof of its universality will be difficult, but at least it can be  
found in good mathematical logic textbook, like Mendelson or Kleene,  
etc.



Bruno










--
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 
.


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

Fwd: fundamentalists object to set theory

[meekerdb]

Surprisingly, Bruno might be invited to teach at Bob Jones University, :-)

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html


Brent

Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk
--- Kronecker

--
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: Fwd: fundamentalists object to set theory

[Stephen P. King]

Really? I was born on the campus of BJU... my parents are alumi. It 
would be nice to be able to shake Bruno's hand, but it will have to be 
off campus as I am banned from stepping foot on Bob Jones Uni. property! 
But your not serious...


On 8/9/2012 9:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:

Surprisingly, Bruno might be invited to teach at Bob Jones University, :-)

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html


Brent

Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk
--- Kronecker

--


--
Onward!

Stephen

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon

--
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: set

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jul 2009, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote:

 Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further  
 explanations.
 You inserted a remark after quoting from my post:
 *
  If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better
  level (say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations
  (unlimited) to the names of 'things' and the increased notion will
  exactly match the 'total' (what A was missing from the 'sum'). It
  will also introduce some uncertainty into the concept (values?) of a
  set.

 I am not sure that I understand.
 *
 Let me try to elaborate on that: What I had in mind was my  
 'interrelated totality' view.
 As you find it natural that 3 (!!!) and 4 () make 34 - if  
 written without a space in between - representing a quite different  
 meaning - (not 7 as would be plainly decipherable: 3+4),


I am not sure What you mean by finding natural. I have just learn in  
school to abbreviate II by 3*10 +4,  
itself abbreviated by 34.




  so all elements of a set carry relations to uncountable items in  
 the unlimited totality (even if you try to restrict the  
 applicability into the identified  {  }  set. Nothing is excluded  
 from the a/effects (relations)  of the rest of the world.


This sentence seems to me far more subtele than anything I am trying  
to explain. Be careful with the term uncountable which will have a  
precise technical meaning.




 No singularity or nivana IN OUR WORLD

 Your 2+2=4 includes a library of conditions, axioms, relations,  
 clarifiers, just as e.g. the equation 4-2=2 includes the notion NOT  
 in ancient Rome (where it would have been '3')


We will axiomatized some mathematical notions, but only when we are  
sure that we get the intuition right. The reason will NOT be a search  
of explicit rigor, but will be related in helping universal machine to  
get the understanding.

Concerning the natural numbers, the more we will be familiar with  
them, the more we will be aware we don't really know what they capable  
of, and why they are fundamentally mysterious. But there is no need to  
add more mystery than the very subtle one which will grow up. This is  
not obvious, and has begun with the work of Dedekind, and Gödel, ...


 So I referred to the tacitly included 'relations' (I use this word  
 for all kinds of knowables in connection with potential effects of  
 other items) implied in your technical stenography.
 Since the relationally interesting items are unlimited, there is no  
 way WE (in our present, limited mind) could exclude uncertainty FOR   
 'ANY' THING. Sets included. Occamisation of a set does not make it  
 rigorous, just neglects additional uncertainty.


I still have no clues why and how you relate infinity with  
uncertainty. What is the occamisation of a set?



 Have a good weekend

I wish you the same,

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: set

[John Mikes]

It seems I am not careful enough to apply my vocabulary to you
and I feel some circularity in your thinking about 'learned' and 'axiomatic'
notions. Let me try again, now in italics.
-

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

I am not sure What you mean by finding natural. I have just learn in
school to abbreviate II by 3*10 +4,
itself abbreviated by 34.

*'Natural' I used as 'without further consideration, as whatever comes to
mind'. We all learned a lot 'in school' that cuts short solutions without
going into (scientific?) nitty-gritties. We now try to dig into those and
re-evaluate the short-cuts or formal abbreviations as to their full
content, we just 'believed'. *
*We also believed 'in school' that God created the world as it is, yet in
later studies we scrutinize the details and try to look  into more than just
the final phrases 'learned' in school. *
**
*Once you identified 3 and 4 I need more knowledge to get to the
abbreviation of 34. You can say: 34 is a set with the value of '34', but
then you involved characteristics of the set - *
*as known stuff, - which is just what I am scrutinizing. *
*Find it natural stands for lack of scrutinizing. *
*--*
 *I think you referred to my sentence:*
 Nothing is excluded
 from the a/effects (relations)  of the rest of the world.
*when you remarked:*
BM: ...This sentence seems to me far more subtle than anything I am trying
to explain.

*It reflects my 'totality' based worldview: an interrelated * *world, ALL
elements in relation with ALL elements - securing the image of 'order' upon
which we can base a science. No part can be excluded or isolated, (not even
elements within a set) it would 'create' havock in theories we try to
learn/formulate.*
-
**
 BM: ...Be careful with the term uncountable which will have a precise
technical meaning.

*I call 'uncountable' what we cannot count (in toto) - the effects exercised
on items within a set (as well as on anything in the world) by the rest of
the world to which we have only a limited access - eo ipso we CANNOT count
the unknown part. Infinite IMO is uncountable, because you can always add
'another' to it (common sense argument). I try to evade the word 'infinite'
because of too many 'technical' connotations attached to it, use rather
unlimited, which may refer to a finite item of which we don't know (yet?)
the total. *
**-

BM: We will axiomatized some mathematical notions, but only when we are
sure that we get the intuition right. The reason will NOT be a search of
explicit rigor, but will be related in helping universal machine to get the
understanding.

*I appreciate the 'axiomatize' what I understand as retrospect formulations
to make our theories workable. Not vice versa. *
***
*I feel the paragraph as 'reverse thinking': our intuition is the working of
our human mindset, I would not apply it as proof for getting the basics
right, of which our mindset is a product. *
**
*Similarly the 'universal machine' is a product of the human mind so it
cannot be invoked as evidencing the total which includes the human mind.
(Circularity). *
**
BM: ...What is the occamisation of a set?

*The application of Occam's razor to cut off all that makes it harder to
understand and concentrate on the easy part. It includes the (limited?)
understanding of a problem by the person doing such 'occamization' -
whatever he finds just complicating the issues he emphasizes. Such issues,
however, may reach into the roots of our poor (mis?)understanding. I find
'Occam' the ultimate reductionism. *
*(I wonder if Russell will excommunicate me for that?) *
*John*


 Original message:
 On 04 Jul 2009, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote:

  Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further
  explanations.
  You inserted a remark after quoting from my post:
  *
   If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better
   level (say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations
   (unlimited) to the names of 'things' and the increased notion will
   exactly match the 'total' (what A was missing from the 'sum'). It
   will also introduce some uncertainty into the concept (values?) of a
   set.
 
  I am not sure that I understand.
  *
  Let me try to elaborate on that: What I had in mind was my
  'interrelated totality' view.
  As you find it natural that 3 (!!!) and 4 () make 34 - if
  written without a space in between - representing a quite different
  meaning - (not 7 as would be plainly decipherable: 3+4),


 I am not sure What you mean by finding natural. I have just learn in
 school to abbreviate II by 3*10 +4,
 itself abbreviated by 34.



  so all elements of a set carry relations to uncountable items in
 the unlimited totality (even if you try to restrict the
 applicability into the identified  {  }  set. Nothing is excluded
 from the a/effects (relations)  of the rest

Re: set

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Jul 2009, at 14:37, John Mikes wrote:


 We also believed 'in school' that God created the world as it is,  
 yet in later studies we scrutinize the details and try to look  into  
 more than just the final phrases 'learned' in school.

In some school the motto is that God is a human product. It is crazy  
what you can make children believe!




 Once you identified 3 and 4 I need more knowledge to get to the  
 abbreviation of 34. You can say: 34 is a set with the value of '34',  
 but then you involved characteristics of the set -
 as known stuff, - which is just what I am scrutinizing.
 Find it natural stands for lack of scrutinizing.


It is your right to scrutinize, even for billions years. But you can  
miss some trains.




 --
 I think you referred to my sentence:
  Nothing is excluded
  from the a/effects (relations)  of the rest of the world.
 when you remarked:
 BM: ...This sentence seems to me far more subtle than anything I am  
 trying to explain.

 It reflects my 'totality' based worldview: an interrelated  world,  
 ALL elements in relation with ALL elements - securing the image of  
 'order' upon which we can base a science. No part can be excluded or  
 isolated, (not even elements within a set) it would 'create' havock  
 in theories we try to learn/formulate.


I build on what 99% of people know or remember of arithmetic. It is  
not really the time to re-evaluate them, it is on the contrary the  
time to remember them, and use them.

There is no magic, it asks for works. But here just ask question when  
you don't understand a solution to an exercise, for example.  
Mathematical intuitions about some object comes from playing with  
those objects. It needs a minimum amount of exercise and practice, for  
not being fool by the superficial choice of the words.




 -

 BM: ...Be careful with the term uncountable which will have a  
 precise technical meaning.

 I call 'uncountable' what we cannot count (in toto)

Good try.
But what do you mean by we ? I asked you that question before. We  
the humans? We the mammals? We the animals? We the live being? We the  
universal numbers? We use the universal numbers with oracle, ...
And then there is the problem to define count, which is a very  
interesting unsolved problem. But there are progress: we can explain  
why universal machine have difficulties when they try to define  
concept like 0, 1, 2, 3 





 - the effects exercised on items within a set (as well as on  
 anything in the world) by the rest of the world to which we have  
 only a limited access - eo ipso we CANNOT count the unknown part.  
 Infinite IMO is uncountable, because you can always add 'another' to  
 it (common sense argument). I try to evade the word 'infinite'  
 because of too many 'technical' connotations attached to it, use  
 rather unlimited, which may refer to a finite item of which we don't  
 know (yet?) the total.


We, and by we I mean the readers of the posts of this thread, will be  
invited, I'm afraid there is no escape, of a bit Cantor theory of the  
Infinites, note the s.
Cantor discovered the Diagonalization technic, which works in set  
theory, mathematical logic and computer science.





 -

 BM: We will axiomatized some mathematical notions, but only when we  
 are sure that we get the intuition right. The reason will NOT be a  
 search of explicit rigor, but will be related in helping universal  
 machine to get the understanding.

 I appreciate the 'axiomatize' what I understand as retrospect  
 formulations to make our theories workable. Not vice versa.

Yes, yes, yes. Important to always keep this in mind. Theories/ 
machines/numbers are tools, they just push light on something, but  
they can introduce shapes and shadows themselves.
Be careful now of not confusing a theory and the betted things the  
theory is supposed to talk about. In the case of numbers and machine  
they can be both the studying thing and the studied things, and this  
makes some hard to predict surprises if I can say.


 *
 I feel the paragraph as 'reverse thinking': our intuition is the  
 working of our human mindset, I would not apply it as proof for  
 getting the basics right, of which our mindset is a product.

 Similarly the 'universal machine' is a product of the human mind so  
 it cannot be invoked as evidencing the total which includes the  
 human mind. (Circularity).


I think that the idea that  ''universal machine' is a product of the  
human mind  is a  product of your mind.
And as such I respect that idea as an opinion.

My opinion is that the universal numbers are indeed the product of  
universal numbers, and they have only partial controls on the relations.

But there can be notable historical events like when amoeba invented  
the cable to develop into what we call brain, which are universal  
machine/number ...  But this happened before, and after ...
A more human-biased account could be that the universal machine

set incompleteness

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno, I mentioned that I have something more on the 'set' as you (and
all since G. Cantor) included it in the formulations. I had a similar notion
about my aris-total, the definition of Aristotle that the 'total' is
always more than the 'sum' of its components. Of course, at the time when A.
thought about it, 'components' were only 'physical objects' included in an
ensemble as individual and unrelated noumena.

If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better level
(say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations (unlimited) to
the names of 'things' and the increased notion will exactly match the
'total' (what A was missing from the 'sum'). It will also introduce some
uncertainty into the concept (values?) of a set.
I see a similar situation with your ways writing of 'sets' (1,2,3...) - or:
( 1, 2, 3... ) neglecting the additional relations maybe expressed in the
(neglected) commas, spaces, even the parentheses. All may mean something and
that meaning gives completeness to the entire set beyond the 'factual'
elements 1 2 3 . I don't know 'what', but for sure something well pertinent.
In infinite sets such uncertainty may amount to infinite uncertainty.

John M

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: set incompleteness

[Bruno Marchal]

John,

On 04 Jul 2009, at 18:24, John Mikes wrote:

 Dear Bruno, I mentioned that I have something more on the 'set' as  
 you (and all since G. Cantor) included it in the formulations. I had  
 a similar notion about my aris-total, the definition of Aristotle  
 that the 'total' is always more than the 'sum' of its components. Of  
 course, at the time when A. thought about it, 'components' were only  
 'physical objects' included in an ensemble as individual and  
 unrelated noumena.

We will see how we can do something similar with set. few  
mathematicians are really interested in sets, but in sets together  
with a structure (usually determined by operations and relations on  
the set.


 If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better  
 level (say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations  
 (unlimited) to the names of 'things' and the increased notion will  
 exactly match the 'total' (what A was missing from the 'sum'). It  
 will also introduce some uncertainty into the concept (values?) of a  
 set.

I am not sure that I understand.


 I see a similar situation with your ways writing of  
 'sets' (1,2,3...) - or: ( 1, 2, 3... )

I guess you mean {1, 2, 3 ... }. { and } are standard, and ( and  
) will be reserved for other things, like delimiter of expression,  
like in (3+4), or the notion of couples (soon to be introduced).



 neglecting the additional relations maybe expressed in the  
 (neglected) commas, spaces, even the parentheses. All may mean  
 something and that meaning gives completeness to the entire set  
 beyond the 'factual' elements 1 2 3 . I don't know 'what', but for  
 sure something well pertinent. In infinite sets such uncertainty may  
 amount to infinite uncertainty.


I don't see anything uncertain in most infinite sets. But this will be  
scrutinized soon, or a bit later ... Some sets will appear more  
complex than other, and *some* set will have uncertainties attached  
to them, but to understand this we have to progress a bit more.

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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

set

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further
explanations.
You inserted a remark after quoting from my post:
*
* If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better
 level (say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations
 (unlimited) to the names of 'things' and the increased notion will
 exactly match the 'total' (what A was missing from the 'sum'). It
 will also introduce some uncertainty into the concept (values?) of a
 set.*

*I am not sure that I understand.*
***
Let me try to elaborate on that: What I had in mind was my 'interrelated
totality' view.
As you find it natural that 3 (!!!) and 4 () make 34 - if written
without a space in between - representing a quite different meaning - (not 7
as would be plainly decipherable: 3+4),
 so all elements of a set carry relations to uncountable items in the
unlimited totality (even if you try to restrict the applicability into the
identified*  {  }*  set. Nothing is excluded from the a/effects (relations)
 of the rest of the world. No singularity or nivana IN OUR WORLD

Your 2+2=4 includes a library of conditions, axioms, relations, clarifiers,
just as e.g. the equation 4-2=2 includes the notion NOT in ancient Rome
(where it would have been '3')
So I referred to the tacitly included 'relations' (I use this word for all
kinds of knowables in connection with potential effects of other items)
implied in your technical stenography.
Since the relationally interesting items are unlimited, there is no way WE
(in our present, limited mind) could exclude uncertainty FOR  'ANY' THING.
Sets included. Occamisation of a set does not make it rigorous, just
neglects additional uncertainty.

Have a good weekend

John

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 20-juil.-06, à 18:07, John M a écrit :

Dear Bruno,
I appreciate your efforts to 'enlighten' me (and maybe others as well). my case there is more ignorance interfering with the explanations and I will re-re-read your post before I come to a conclusion.
As I tried to tell, when you matter-of-factly handle concepts of your 'daily bread' I have to search after for some meaning I can assign as a key to 'read on'.
Even the cardinal points in your theory are not functional parts of my mi nd-content (UD, YesDr, even 'comp') but I get lost with G and G', even I have to translate for my own vocabulary the 1- and 3- features or expressions from 'logics'. All these are raining down in your sentences and I cannot ask you not to use them: I use MY 'words' just the same and others ask back many times using for themselves in other meanings.

The field of logic is not so well known, as compared to algebra and calculus. Not your fault.


 
There are very few math\ematically gifted minds among us and it does not help what a post yesterday stated that everybody can learn math (thinking) if diligent. You as  math teacher may know pupils who just CANNOT get it.


I guess such pupil exists, but I cannot decide, and I don't think the pupil can decide, except for his taste.




The fraction of humanity cursed with mathematical imparement (ha ha) looks down to the rest of us, a natural defence of the minority.


Many greeks seemed to have fallen in love with numbers when their discovered that the sum of the first even numbers give always perfect square:

1 = 1
1 + 3 =  4
1+ 3 + 5 =  9
1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16
1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 =  25
...

A simple drawing can explain why it is necessarily so, thus that is a law of numbers. Is that not cute? But math is just not in fashion today for contingent reasons. Like music, it helps developing the taste and educating it as early as possible.




A special case the 'applied math' you mentioned.
Mostly physicists (and other scientists as well) - thinking in limited models - learned math and aooky itg equationally to a
quantized system of their model-view. It elevates the model content to 'total' 

I hear that feeling. Incompleteness provides a sort of vaccine against that total apprehension!



and the imperfections from neglectimg the 'rest of the world - beyond the model's boundaries' lead to paradoxes and orher misconceptions over millennia.

Yes. And I would say, perhaps naively, that now that we know that numbers are antireductionist, we should not fear to come back to some Pythagorean Greek rational theologies. Ah! Perhaps we should wait more people get that point, but then I should advertise more for math 


 
I have some understanding in the math0thinking, my problem is that I did not 'learn' and 'continue' enough math after that rudimentary conventional domain necessary for the Ph,D exam as 'elective'. 

You don't need to say. I have myself been disgusted of logic during ten years, and it is only a very special set of circumstances that throws me back in partially.
I am a platonist: if you don't find time for math in this life, prepare yourself to do math in the next one (and take this with a graint of salt ;)



 In my practical polymer RD including numerous implementations and consulting I did not need 'math' and so it faded over all those decades. I never lear\ned theo. logics.
 
I think I am not the worst candidate for what I proposed, yet it may be more than the burden you might take on.
 
Sorry if I wasted your time and consideration.

You didn't, best

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- 

RE: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

[Chen Walter]

Hi all,

It's very interesting to see these ideas. Common people can understand 
common languages (like English, Chinese etc.).
So I think even the most difficult math. or physics theories can be 
translated into other common languages that 
common people can understand easily.
I don't see why common people can not understand the most difficult math. 
equations.
Those math. equations or theorems should be just like one language that can 
be translated into another common
language that everyone can understand.

Thanks.

WC.
 


From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John M
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

Bruno,

George wrote an admirably wise note and you picked positively on the 
roadmap with the fruitful mind of a logician. 
It looks like you both start out from not agreeing because of 
non-understanding math sufficiently - which may be true, but not 
necessarily the real root. 

I think many of us have the wrong information about 'math' in question. You 
called numbers the series of '1,2,3...many' and we think 'math' is a 
manipulation of such, even if many substitute and functional symbols are 
used. 

My question (and I asked it several times here and on diverse other lists 
and got no satisfactory answer) - still prevails:
What are (in the new meaning) NUMBERS - how can we handle the non-number 
concepts by numbers - (whatever they are)? Rephrased: What is the 'new' 
meaning of math and how can non-math concepts be handled by math? 

Norman touched it, 1Z goes around it, David Bohm even went that far as to 
state: numbers (and so math) are human inventions, probably based on Plato, 
who made the biggest (philosophical) argument - as the product  of HIS 
mind. 

Words are loaded with different meanings and people tend to use their 
favorite - mostly from the mother tongue.  I admire George's open mind 
accepting the diverse positions and I am also no missionary who wants to 
convert people, but even if I think differently, I like to follow the 
mental ways of others. It may add usefully to my own thinking. 

So I propose a 'starting' point to the 'roadmap':
How may one consider the new version(s) of number and math instead of the 
arithmetic-based and binary computer founded conventional ignorance? (It is 
not a 101 course what this list should be above, it may draw in 
'more-sided' opinions into the discussion - which is now pretty much on the 
math - physics base only. Extending to other planes of 'everything'.)

Then we may proceed in understanding the 'stuffy' matter (as e.g.. a photon 
- ha ha) and the physicists' concepts mostly based on some mathematical 
application, including the most esoteric 'everything' topics. 
After all that I may try to speak about my ways how I am not in controversy 
with all that - only regarding it as a partial view of the totality (which 
is hard to talk about). Not for converting you or others, just for proving 
to myself some (Levy-type) sanity. 

So how should I include the validity of a legal opinion into the numbers? 
How should I 'comp'(?) the feeling of love? How should I 'materialize' 
(physically?) the beauty of a sunset? 
(all without flattening those qualia into a quantitative plane)?

Eager to learn

John Mikes
- Original Message - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)


Hi George,


A roadmap could be a very good idea. I will think about it. 
I will keep on your level notions:

-kids
-grandmother
-colleagues

(But not in any normative sense: I know kids who are better in math than 
colleagues, and I know a family where the computer and the net has been 
installed by the grand-grandmother! So here each one should judge by 
him/herself on which level they to feel to be.

But a roadmap, some summaries ... are in need, sure. Not so easy of course. 
Just let me think about it.
Note also that if I explain in plain english, what I say could appear as a 
little weird, that is why I tend to be technical. And also, I don't know 
much people who can swallow both Godel/Church... and Everett/Deutsch ... 
Quantum information science can help, but this is a bit tricky by itself 
when you want to be enough precise, and still a long way from Godel-lobian 
notions.

In any case thanks for letting me know when I get too much technical. 
Thanks to Norman who tries sometimes to convey a similar message, and 
thanks to Tom for enjoying apparently the more technical posts , and 
thanks to 1Z for playing the role of the skeptical one, and thanks to all 
of you, especially Wei Dai, for the kind patience.

I will think about some roadmap, but also about some books which could 
provide helps.

Feel

Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

[Bruno Marchal]

 one is incorrect.  


 
So I propose a 'starting' point to the 'roadmap':
How may one consider the new version(s) of number and math instead of the arithmetic-based and binary computer founded conventional ignorance? (It is not a 101 course what this list should be above, it may draw in 'more-sided' opinions into the discussion - which is now pretty much on the math - physics base only. Extending to other planes of 'everything'.)
 
Then we may proceed in understanding the 'stuffy' matter (as e.g.. a photon - ha ha) and the physicists' concepts mostly based on some mathematical application, including the most esoteric 'everything' topics.
After all that I may try to speak about my ways how I am not in controversy with all that - only regarding it as a partial view of the totality (which is hard to talk about). Not for converting you or others, just for proving to myself some (Levy-type) sanity.
 
So how should I include the validity of a legal opinion into the numbers? 


Here I am not sure I follow you. When I talk about (natural) numbers I am really talking about those (non definable) entities that every schoolchild learn about through table of addition, multiplication, etc. They are the same as Euclid's one in the sense that all what Euclid proved about them is still valid today.




How should I 'comp'(?) the feeling of love? 


In principle there will no be problem for that, although I still cannot explain this without explaining more about the G-G* gap. Later perhaps. Note that such a question is more difficult for a physicalist who believes only in atoms or strings (or quantum gravity loops ...) because they don't have (yet) the equivalent of the G-G* gap (akin to the explanation gap of the philosopher of mind). Try to explain why you like potatoes using only terms from string theory, for example.
But comp provides an explanation why anything describable in a seemingly third person way, will automatically be extended into a math structure divided in two parts: a 3-communicable part (deriving from G), and a non-3-communicable part (deriving from the corona G* minus G).
I recall that G is a mathematical theory describing completely the (skeleton) of what a correct machine can prove about itself, and G* describes the (skeleton) of all the truth---including the non provable one---concerning what a machine can (and cannot) prove about itself.

For those who have read a bit on the difference between programmable function Fi and the total computable function fi could perhaps already smell the mathematical justification of that explanatory gap.


How should I 'materialize' (physically?) the beauty of a sunset?
(all without flattening those qualia into a quantitative plane)?


It is exactly here that it is hard for me non going technical because I find it is worth. Indeed it can be proved that when a universal machine M1 introspects herself, she will discover both sharable (provable) quantitative truth and non sharable qualitative (non quantitative, nor even 3-describable) truth. Actually any much stronger (in term of its set of beliefs) universal machine, M2 say, will be able to show that those non quantitative truth are really disguised form of quantitative truth, but M2 can understand why, from the many points of view of M1 itself (including both the 1 and 3 povs), although quantitative, those truth cannot *appear* to be quantitative. M1 can grasp those personal truth only in a qualitative way. This will explain qualia, but also why in some sense a universal machine cannot know she is a machine, nor even any 3-entity.

Later I will come back on the arithmetical notion of persons we encounter through the self-reference theories (G and G*) in computer science. I call them hypostases so that people who read Plotinus can see how close we are, with comp, to Plato, and even to Plotinus' critics of Aristotle misunderstanding of Plato.

But that is probably on the last point of the roadmap, so I stop, momentarily here. If I have already been too technical just tell me or ask questions. Hope this helps a bit,

Bruno


 
Eager to learn
 
John Mikes
x-tad-bigger- Original Message -/x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerFrom:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerBruno Marchal/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerTo:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggereverything-list@googlegroups.com/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerSent:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:39 AM/x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerSubject:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)/x-tad-bigger

Hi George,


A roadmap could be a very good idea. I will think about it.   snip>


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 unsubscr

Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

[John M]

Dear Bruno,
I appreciate your efforts to 'enlighten' me (and 
maybe others as well). my case there is more ignorance interfering with the 
explanations and I will re-re-read your post before I come to a 
conclusion.
As I tried to tell, when you "matter-of-factly" 
handle concepts of your 'daily bread' I have to search after for some meaning I 
can assign as a key to 'read on'.
Even the cardinal points in your theory are not 
functional parts of my mi nd-content (UD, YesDr, even 'comp') but I get lost 
with G and G', even I have to translate for my own vocabulary the 1- and 3- 
features or expressions from 'logics'. All these are raining down in your 
sentences and I cannot ask you not to use them: I use MY 'words' just the same 
and others ask back many times using for themselves in other meanings. 


There are very few math\ematically gifted minds 
among us and it does not help what a post yesterday stated that "everybody can 
learn math (thinking) if diligent". You as math teacher may know pupils 
who "just CANNOT get it. 
The fraction of humanity cursed with mathematical 
imparement (ha ha) looks down to the rest of us, a natural defence of the 
minority. 
A special case the 'applied math' you 
mentioned.
Mostly physicists (and other scientists as well) - 
thinking in limited models - learned math and aooky itg equationally to a 

quantized system of their model-view. It elevates 
the model content to 'total' and the imperfections from neglectimg the 'rest of 
the world - beyond the model's boundaries' lead to paradoxes and orher 
misconceptions over millennia. 

I have some understanding in the math0thinking, my 
problem is that I did not 'learn' and 'continue' enough math after that 
rudimentary conventional domain necessary for the Ph,D exam as 'elective'. 
In my practical polymer RD including numerous implementations and 
consulting I did not need 'math' and so it faded over all those decades. I never 
lear\ned theo. logics. 

I think I am not the worst candidate for what I 
proposed, yet it may be more than the burden you might take on.

Sorry if I wasted your time and 
consideration.

John


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bruno Marchal 
  
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:22 
  AM
  Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial 
  answer to Tom's Diagonalization)
  John,Le 19-juil.-06, à 18:01, John M a écrit 
  :
  Bruno,George 
wrote an admirably wise note and you picked positively on the roadmap with 
the fruitful mind of a logician.It looks like you both 
start out from "not agreeing because of non-understanding math sufficiently" 
- which may be true, but not necessarily the "real" 
root.I think many of 
us have the wrong information about 'math' in question. You called "numbers" 
the series of '1,2,3...many' and "we" think 'math' is a manipulation of 
such, even if many substitute and functional symbols are 
used.All right. 
  My question (and I asked it 
several times here and on diverse other lists and got no satisfactory 
answer) -still 
prevails:What are (in the new 
meaning) NUMBERS - how can we handle the non-number concepts by numbers - 
(whatever they are)? Rephrased: What is the 'new' meaning of "math" and how 
can non-math concepts be handled by 
  math?OK, OK, but this is a difficult 
  question, John. Let me give you a standard answer, which should be simple, and 
  then add a comp nuance, which is probably a little bit more subtle.First I 
  don't think there is new meaning of math. Just new branch of math like 
  mathematical logics, philosophical logics, metamathematics, computer science, 
  etc. Since Euler I think mathematician are more and more aware that the 
  numbers are mysterious, and since Godel we have results which somehow explain 
  why numbers are necessarily mysterious. Such limitation results are made 
  *general* (machine or formalism independent) with Church thesis. And then with 
  comp above, those results will bear on the limitation of *humans*: in that 
  sense we can say that we begin to understand why the numbers are mysterious, 
  why we cannot find unifying theory for the numbers, etc.Now for the 
  question "How can non-math concept be handled by math?" The standard 
  answer goes trough the label "applied mathematics". You just need to make a 
  correspondence between some term of the theory and some element of the 
  "reality" you want to modelize with the math theory. This is what physicists 
  do all the time, and this what theologians have done during one millenia 
  (before "religion" has been used as a political power (say)(*))It just 
  applied mathematics.Unfortunately with comp there is a big nuance 
  here.Indeed, when you are using some theory (model in the physicist sense) 
  to predict the whether (say), it

Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

[John M]

Bruno,

George wrote an admirably wise note and you picked 
positively on the roadmap with the fruitful mind 
of a logician. 
It looks like you both start out from "not agreeing 
because of non-understanding math sufficiently" - which may be true, but not 
necessarily the "real" root. 

I think many of us have the wrong information about 
'math' in question. You called "numbers" the series of '1,2,3...many' and "we" 
think 'math' is a manipulation of such, even if many substitute and functional 
symbols are used. 

My question (and I asked it several times here and 
on diverse other lists and got no satisfactory answer) -still 
prevails:
What are (in the new meaning) NUMBERS - 
how can we handle the non-number concepts by 
numbers - (whatever they are)? Rephrased: What is the 'new' meaning of "math" 
and how can non-math concepts be handled by math? 

Norman touched it, 1Z goes around it, David Bohm 
even went that far as to state: numbers (and so math) are human inventions, 
probably based on Plato, who made the biggest (philosophical) argument - as the 
product of HIS mind. 
Words are loaded with different meanings and people tend to use their 
favorite - mostly from the mother tongue. I admire George's open mind 
accepting the diverse positions and I am also no missionary who wants to convert 
people, but even if I think differently, I like to follow the mental ways of 
others. It may add usefully to my own thinking. 

So I propose a 'starting' point to the 'roadmap':
How may one consider the new version(s) of number and math instead of the 
arithmetic-based and binary computer founded conventional ignorance? (It is not 
a 101 course what this list should be above, it may draw in 'more-sided' 
opinions into the discussion - which is now pretty much on the math - physics 
base only. Extending to other planes of 'everything'.)

Then we may proceed in understanding the 'stuffy' matter (as e.g.. a photon 
- ha ha) and the physicists' concepts mostly based on some mathematical 
application, including the most esoteric 'everything' topics. 
After all that I may try to speak about my ways how I am not in controversy 
with all that - only regarding it as a partial view of the totality (which is 
hard to talk about). Not for converting you or others, just for proving to 
myself some (Levy-type) sanity. 

So how should I include the validity of a legal opinion into the numbers? 
How should I 'comp'(?) the feeling of love? How should I 'materialize' 
(physically?) the beauty of a sunset? 
(all without flattening those qualia into a quantitative plane)?

Eager to learn

John Mikes

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bruno Marchal 
  
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:39 
  AM
  Subject: Re: K the Master Set (+ partial 
  answer to Tom's Diagonalization)
  Hi George,A roadmap could be a very good idea. I 
  will think about it. I will keep on your level 
  notions:-kids-grandmother-colleagues(But not in any 
  normative sense: I know kids who are better in math than colleagues, and I 
  know a family where the computer and the net has been installed by the 
  grand-grandmother! So here each one should judge by him/herself on which level 
  they to feel to be.But a roadmap, some summaries ... are in need, 
  sure. Not so easy of course. Just let me think about it.Note also that if 
  I explain in plain english, what I say could appear as a little weird, that is 
  why I tend to be technical. And also, I don't know much people who can swallow 
  both Godel/Church... and Everett/Deutsch ... Quantum information science can 
  help, but this is a bit tricky by itself when you want to be enough precise, 
  and still a long way from Godel-lobian notions.In any case thanks for 
  letting me know when I get too much technical. Thanks to Norman who tries 
  sometimes to convey a similar message, and thanks to Tom for enjoying 
  apparently the more technical posts , and thanks to 1Z for playing the 
  role of the skeptical one, and thanks to all of you, especially Wei Dai, for 
  the kind patience.I will think about some roadmap, but also about some 
  books which could provide helps.Feel free to say more on your 
  "relativity"-information theory. Everyone can talk I certainly don't want to 
  monopolize the threads (but then I got a result and I like to share with 
  motivated people ...)...Now I will leave my office before I liquefy 
  completely BrunoLe 19-juil.-06, à 00:32, 
  George Levy a écrit :
  Hi BrunoEach one of us like to do what we do best and we 
apply our preferred techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may 
solve the pollution problem by building electric cars, and the cook may 
solve the same problem by preparing vegetarian meals.As a 
mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything using 
mathematics, this is understandable, and you ca

K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Tom, Hi George,

George, and others, you can skip the partial answer to Tom,  and go 
directly to K, the master set below.
Tom seems to propose an alternate proof, which does not convince me, 
although I cannot right now provide a full counter-example. Note that 
the section K, the Master Set could already put some light on that 
matter.



1) Partial answer to Tom:

Le 17-juil.-06, ˆ 22:42, Tom Caylor a Žcrit :

 Now *your* G is just defined by G(n) = GEN2(n).

 But doesn't G output the range of one of the set of *all* partial
 recursive functions, whereas GEN2 outputs the code of a *fortran*
 program?  So shouldn't it be the following, where execute() actually
 executes the fortran program generated by GEN2(n)?

 G(n) = execute(GEN2(n))


I should have written G(n) = Gen2(n) (n)  (= execute Pn on n)




 Tell me if you are convince that your and my G are programmable.


 They are both programmable, but I think they are both non-*executable*
 on k (if G=Fk), for the same reason, self-reference.



Let me give you a counterexample with a sequence of total functions.

Let Hi be a RE sequence of (codes) of total functions. (so the seq. Hi 
is ­  from the seq. Fi)

Let GBruno be defined by GBruno(n) = Hn(n) +1
Let GTom be defined by GTom(n) = Hn(n)

Could GBruno belongs to the sequence Hi?
If GBruno belongs to the Hi, it means there is a number kbr such that 
GBruno = Hkbr, thus
GBruno(kbr) = Hkbr(kbr) = Hkbr(kbr)+1. So I can be sure that GBruno 
does not belong to the sequence Hi. OK? (the usual simple subtraction 
would lead to 0 = 1)
Does GTom belongs to Hi?
If GTom belongs to the Hi, it means there is a number kto such Gtom = 
Hkto, thus
Gtom(kto) = Hkto(kto), which is the case by definition of your Gtom. 
No contradiction occurs, so in principle the total function Gtom could 
belongs to the list, and indeed is equal to the sequence Hi, despite 
self-reference.

The same could be true for the partial recursive Fi.
I don't see any reason why, if G(n) is defined by Fn(n), G should be 
necessarily undefined on its own index. Your argument could rely on the 
way you implement G.

Actually I could perhaps build an ad hoc counterexample working for 
some particular enumeration of the Fi, but I need some time to do it, 
if it is possible

So I propose we come back on this after a while. Probably you will 
figure out what is happening by yourself. Actually your intuition is 
right: something happens with self-application (see below). If I try to 
explain all of it here, this could be a little confusing. What you need 
to be sure of is the fact that when G(n) is defined by Fn(n)+1, then 
G(k) will be necessarily undefined on all k such that G = Fk.
(Independently of the fact that you could be right that G'(k') is also 
undefined when G' (n) is defined by Fn(n), and k' is a code or index of 
G'; but your argument is not a proof because it depends on the precise 
way G is implemented). I must think ...




2) K, the Master set

Emil Post, the founder of Recursion Theory, introduced the following 
set (of numbers) which will appears to be fundamental. It will 
correspond, in term of set, to the universal machine. K will be an 
universal RE set, capable of generating all RE sets.

I recall the code of the RE sets are generable, and the RE sets are the 
domain Wi of the Fi.

Definition: K is the set of numbers x such that Fx(x) is defined.

So K is the set of natural number x such that the xth programs in the 
enumeration of the codes of all programs does stop when apply on 
itself. I prefer to talk about self-application instead of 
self-reference (to follow standard terminology).


I give exercises (if only because my office is an oven and my brain is 
boiling hot):

1) Is K an RE set?   Answer: yes  (why?)

2) Is N \ K an RE set?  Answer: no  (why? Hint: diagonalization)

3) From this conclude that the halting problem is insoluble.

4) try to justify that someone having an algorithm for generating K 
will be able to generate any Wi. Put in another way, from a mechanical 
solution to the problem does Fx(x) stop we can construct an algorithm 
solving the apparent more general problem does Fx(y) stop.

5) From 2) show that N \ K is productive (like the set of codes of 
the computable growing functions). That is N \ K is not only not-RE, 
but is constructively not-RE. You need to find an algorithm A such that 
for any Wi included in N \ K, A(i) will give an element in N \ K which 
is not in Wi.  If you look at that Wi as an attempt to enumerate all N 
\ K, you can see the algorithm A as providing a counter-example. 
Conclude that N \ K can be better and better approximated by iterations 
in the constructive transfinite (like we done with the fairy).


MAIN DEFINITION (Emil Post):

A set E (of numbers) is called CREATIVE if
   1) E is RE
   2) N \  E is productive

So the exercise can be sum up into: show that K is a creative set. 
There are deep relations between creative sets, universal machines, and 
lobian

Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

[George Levy]

Hi Bruno

Each one of us like to do what we do best and we apply our preferred
techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may solve the
pollution problem by building electric cars, and the cook may solve the
same problem by preparing vegetarian meals.

As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything
using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP
which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.

I came up independently with my own concept involving a generalization
of relativity to information theory ( my background is
engineering/physics) and somehow we seem to agree on many points.
Unfortunately I do not have the background and the time to give my
ideas a formal background. It is just an engineering product and it
feels right.

I believe that what you are saying is right, however I am having some
trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would help if
you outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the
roadmap without having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at
every turn even though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am
sure. For example you could use several levels of explanation: a first
level would be as if your were talking to your grandmother; a second
level, talking to your kids (if they listen); a last level, talking to
your colleagues. 

George


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list  -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Descriptive Set Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Tom,

Le 06-oct.-05, à 19:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

I've been looking a little into what there is on-line about 
descriptive set theory, a relatively new field.
It seems that with the questions about cardinality and descriptions on 
this list, that descriptive set theory (Polish spaces being an 
important element) would be useful, if not essential.
A search of this list doesn't turn up any references to it.  Does 
anyone have enough knowledge of it to give a brief note on how it ties 
in with this list's discussion?



Descriptive set theory can be used in the foundations of analysis. The 
idea consists in using some nice subsets of the reals so as to avoid 
conceptual difficulties and keeping powerful tools in analysis. 
Actually I have used descriptive set theory in my first attempts to 
tackle the measure problem pertaining on the first person observer 
moments (where Kripke models fails). Some people have used it also in 
computational learning theory. I have worked hard to eliminate the use 
of descriptive set theory if only because to use them in comp you need 
some stronger from of Church thesis (but this makes them fruitful in 
some non-comp approach). Now, honestly, from I can judge about the 
knowledge of logic in this list, descriptive theory (which quantifies 
on both the natural numbers and the reals) is far too technical a 
subject so that it can be use easily.
I'm a bit busy to say much more, but perhaps you have a good intuition 
because if you describe directly the set of infinite path (histories) 
on which the 1-measure pertains, you cannot escape the analytical 
hierarchy, the hyperarithmetic sets, etc. But then I am happy of 
having find a way to single out the logic of comp-certainty without 
addressing the need to classify mathematically those infinite path.
To sum up, the use of descriptive set theory seems to me premature, 
although unavoidable for future work on the measure and probability 
questions on OMs.
If you are interested, a good book on the subject is the Oxford Logic 
Guides 11: Recursive Aspects of Descriptive Set Theory by Richard 
Mansfield and Galen Weitkamp, 1985.
Prerequisites: the whole of Rogers' book (ref in my thesis). For my 
thesis you need to understand about the half of Rogers book (the 
easiest part I would say).
But, you know, with comp, we can expect that the whole of mathematical 
logic can be of some use soon or later. Mathematical Logic is the 
philosophical logic of the Platonists!

(But please don't repeat this to a mathematical logician!).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Descriptive Set Theory

[daddycaylor]

I've been looking a little into what there is on-line about descriptive 
set theory, a relatively new field.
It seems that with the questions about cardinality and descriptions on 
this list, that descriptive set theory (Polish spaces being an 
important element) would be useful, if not essential.
A search of this list doesn't turn up any references to it.  Does 
anyone have enough knowledge of it to give a brief note on how it ties 
in with this list's discussion?


Tom Caylor

Re: Is the universe a set? Probably not.

[Hal Ruhl]

My particular approach is to base the universe on the idea that it is a 
physical isomorphism of but one of a set of incomplete, finite, 
consistent FAS [ifc-FAS].  Members of this set occasionally [no time 
connotations] freeze out spontaneously from a growing, seething, foamy 
fractal of bifurcations [say zeros and ones] I call a superverse.  The 
superverse itself spontaneously arose from no absolute information because 
no absolute information is itself incomplete.  It can not answer the 
question of its own stability.

The simplest form of such a resulting initiating incomplete fc-FAS is one 
with a single axiom containing relative information only and a set of rules 
for operating on the axiom.
The incompleteness of this FAS makes it indeterminant - it continues to 
grow by an ongoing Godelian type of freezing out process from the 
superverse.  I identify these logic growth events as isomorphic [in our 
universe] to quantum perturbations.  Aside from its incompleteness 
resolution process, the only dynamic supportable by such an ifc-FAS is a 
recursively enumerated cascade set of theorems that starts with the 
single axiom.

The simplest SAS capable physical isomorphism seems to be a 3 space grid of 
isolated points that can not migrate, but can relocate relative to 
neighbor points within their region of the grid in a quantified way.  Each 
configuration is isomorphic to a theorem of the ifc-FAS.

While the points are identical they are distinguishable by their relative 
position thus they seem to form a set.

A quantum mechanics and a relativity seem easy to derive on such a base.

If I understand Russell correctly this may be a Hilbert space in the sense 
that the superverse may be a continuous set of bifurcations, but I am not 
a mathematician.  However, each ifc-FAS describes a finite discrete subset 
of this space.

So it seems to me that the universe is a set on multiple scales.

If anyone is interested my model such as it currently stands is at:

http://www.connix.com/~hjr/model01.html

Hal





  

Re: Is the universe a set? Probably not.

[Russell Standish]

Christoph Schiller wrote:
 
 What I meant with the word is in the title was:
 
 Is the most precise description of  the uniwerse a set?
 
 I am not talking about ontology or epistemology, just about 
 experiments and comparison with theory.
 
 Of course, both quantum theory and relativity *assume* 
 sets to start with; the whole point is that despite this,
 when one takes them *together* (and in fact, it turns
 out, only then) one can deduce that these sets make no sense.
 
 I do not know how to think without sets, but I sure want to
 know whether and how far this is possible. That is the real fun here.
 
 It is said than one fallacy in the argument is that it is assumed 
 that all sets used in the physical description of nature are derived
 from space-time and particle sets. I do not know of any others; 
 I'd thought that all are built up from these. I am *very*
 curious if there are any other, independent sets. That is indeed
 extremely important for the argument, and would kill it.

My understanding of QM is that it is based on a set (the Hilbert space
of wavefunctions) that is neither a space-time set nor a particle
set. It has infinite dimensionality while space-time sets are finite,
and is continuous while particle sets are discrete.

Let me know if I'm missing something here, but I would have thought
that this does kill your argument.





Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax   9385 6965
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks

Re: Is the universe a set? On the one hand it is, on the other hand...

[GSLevy]

We must distinguish between what is the universe is and what we think it is. 
I am not sure if there is any point talking about the universe as it really 
is since this discussion takes us into the unknowable. Therefore let's talk 
about the universe as we can perceive it.

If we consider ourselves to be deterministic and finite state machines then 
the universe we perceive is definitely a set since we can only perceive a 
limited set of mental states. If we insist that the universe that we perceive 
is not a set, then we must also admit that our thinking process cannot be 
described by deterministic and finite state machines. 

I believe this argument presents a problem for Bruno who relies on the 
machine model to describe the human mind.

What is a set, and what is deterministic may depend on the observer, as 
strange as it may seem. For example, if my mind can be modelled by 
1000,000,000 states and your mind by the same 1000,000,000 states plus 1 for 
a total of 1000,000,001 states then I may perceive your behavior to be 
sometimes indeterministic or, in human terms, incomprehensible. 

George Levy