RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Bruno Marchal writes: What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is that comp eludes the material implementation problem, given that we take all abstract possible relationship between those objects, and they are all well defined as purely number theoretical relations. Note that this is something I have tried to explain to Jacques Mallah sometimes ago, but without much success. This does not make much sense in ASSA approaches, but, like George Levy I think, I don't believe in absolute probability of being me, or of living my current observer moment. Such a probability can be given the value one (said George) but it is close of saying that the universe is here, which tells us nothing, really. It is like answering who are you? by I am me.I'm satisfied with this summary. The physical implementation problem is not a problem when considering abstract machines. Stathis Papaioannou _ Live Search: Better results, fast http://get.live.com/search/overview --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right', 2/ the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether I know it or not. In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world, there seems to be no way of knowing if the universe should be described as ultimately numeric in nature. I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep and meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer Hubble's view of the universe; the threads and discourses seem to be expanding away from me at great speed, so that every time I try to follow and respond to something, everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little bit further out of reach! Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ John Mikes wrote: Bruno: has anybody ever seen numbers? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery). Where is the universe - good question, but: Has anybody ever seen Other universes? Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl Ar? It is amazing what learned savant scientists posted over the past days. Where are they indeed? John On 2/1/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical universe. Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don' t care. But we have to bet on a reality, if we want some progress. Now, here is what I do. For each lobian machine Where are these machines? Platonia? Where is the universe? I prefer to assume what I can see. Fair enough. I think we can sum up the main difference between Platonists and Aristotelians like that: Aristotelians believe in what they see, measure, etc. But platonists believe that what they see is the shadow of the shadow of the shadow ... of what could *perhaps* ultimately exists. The deeper among the simplest argument for platonism, is the dream argument. Indeed, dreaming can help us to take some distance with the idea that seeing justifies beliefs. Put in another way, I believe in what I understand, and I am agnostic (and thus open minded) about everything else. Now to be sure, I am not convinced that someone has ever seen *primary matter*. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Stathis, Bruno, This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a way to 'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without the 'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform? There are sacrosanct 'words' used without explaining them (over and over again?, BUT at least once for the benefit of that newcomer 'alien' who comes from another vista' , like (absolute?) probability - is there such a thing as probability, the figment that if it happend x times it WILL happen the (X+one)th time as well? combined with the statistical hoax of counting from select members in a limited group the version 'A' models and assuming its 'probability'? observer moment (observer, for that matter), whether the moment is a time-concept in it and the 'observer' must be conscious (btw: identifying 'conscious') number (in the broader sense, yet applied as real integers) (Btw: are the 'non-Arabic' numbers also numbers? the figments of evolutionary languages alp[habetical or not? Is zero a number? Was not in Platonia - a millennium before its invention(?!) The 'extensions' of machine into (loebian etc.) [non?]-machine, like comp into the nondigital and mixing our mental interpretations with what has been interpreted (unknowable). Just some picked examples promoting a not-so-technical glossary for the rest of the world John M On 2/3/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Marchal writes: What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is that comp eludes the material implementation problem, given that we take all abstract possible relationship between those objects, and they are all well defined as purely number theoretical relations. Note that this is something I have tried to explain to Jacques Mallah sometimes ago, but without much success. This does not make much sense in ASSA approaches, but, like George Levy I think, I don't believe in absolute probability of being me, or of living my current observer moment. Such a probability can be given the value one (said George) but it is close of saying that the universe is here, which tells us nothing, really. It is like answering who are you? by I am me. I'm satisfied with this summary. The physical implementation problem is not a problem when considering abstract machines. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Mark, a profound THANKS! I did not reflect lately to your posts (good for you?) because you seemed to merge into the topics on hand. Descartes? a funny story. He was under the thumb of the Inquisition-times and HAD to write idealistically. My version is not so humble as yours: I think, therefore I think I am. Speaking of HUMBLE reminds me of HUBBLE you mentioned. His ingenious (unconfirmed) idea to simulate the redshift with an (optical) Doppler infected the minds of all 20th c. scientists into an extensive(?) cosmology religion. You even dream up a psych metaphor from it. (I like it). Accurately: just as those millions of experiments slanted to prove the BB-related tale led to 'accurate' scientific conclusions. Circularity: 'I' design an experiment within the 'expanding' circumstances and indeed find that the universe expands.(If not: the experiment was wrong). With Hubble invoking magnetic/electric (or whatever) fields(?) to slow down the alleged (= calculated upon primitive measurements) 'wavelength' (whatever that is) would have altered not only our cosmic, but also the other -including philosophical- sciences by now. 'Being' anything? maybe 'becoming' part of a process... Where? space is just a motion-coordinate in our (explanatory) view as time. Motion (change) is harder to catch. I agree with describing the universe numerically: if someone takes such position, it is a fair description - I just don't know of what. (Map vs. the territory). I think you set your goals too high: I want to speculate as well as I can within the cognitive inventory we achieved by today, irrespective of the TRUTH which is unattainable. So far. Less-tenaciously yours John M On 2/3/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right', 2/ the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether I know it or not. In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world, there seems to be no way of knowing if the universe should be described as ultimately numeric in nature. I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep and meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer Hubble's view of the universe; the threads and discourses seem to be expanding away from me at great speed, so that every time I try to follow and respond to something, everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little bit further out of reach! Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ http://www.arach.net.au/%7Empeaty/ John Mikes wrote: Bruno: has anybody ever seen numbers? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery). Where is the universe - good question, but: Has anybody ever seen Other universes? Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl Ar? It is amazing what learned savant scientists posted over the past days. Where are they indeed? John On 2/1/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical universe. Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don' t care. But we have to bet on a reality, if we want some progress. Now, here is what I do. For each lobian machine Where are these machines? Platonia? Where is the universe? I prefer to assume what I can see. Fair enough. I think we can sum up the main difference between Platonists and Aristotelians like that: Aristotelians believe in what they see, measure, etc. But platonists believe that what they see is the shadow of the shadow of the shadow ... of what could *perhaps* ultimately exists. The deeper among the simplest argument for platonism, is the
RE: Searles' Fundamental Error
Mark,As Bertrand Russell comented on Descartes' cogito, it's even going a bit far to deduce I think, therefore I am; all you can say with certainty is I think, therefore there is a thought. There is a difference in kind between certainty and a reasonable model, as there is a difference in kind between zero and a very small number or infinity and a very large number. Stathis PapaioannouDate: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 01:12:42 +0900From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right', 2/ the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether I know it or not. In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world, there seems to be no way of knowing if the universe should be described as ultimately numeric in nature. I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep and meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer Hubble's view of the universe; the threads and discourses seem to be expanding away from me at great speed, so that every time I try to follow and respond to something, everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little bit further out of reach! Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ John Mikes wrote: Bruno: has anybody ever seen numbers? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery). Where is the universe - good question, but: Has anybody ever seen Other universes? Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl Ar? It is amazing what learned savant scientists posted over the past days. Where are they indeed? John On 2/1/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical universe. Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don' t care. But we have to bet on a reality, if we want some progress. Now, here is what I do. For each lobian machine Where are these machines? Platonia? Where is the universe? I prefer to assume what I can see. Fair enough. I think we can sum up the main difference between Platonists and Aristotelians like that: Aristotelians believe in what they see, measure, etc. But platonists believe that what they see is the shadow of the shadow of the shadow ... of what could *perhaps* ultimately exists. The deeper among the simplest argument for platonism, is the dream argument. Indeed, dreaming can help us to take some distance with the idea that seeing justifies beliefs. Put in another way, I believe in what I understand, and I am agnostic (and thus open minded) about everything else. Now to be sure, I am not convinced that someone has ever seen *primary matter*. Bruno _ Live Search: Better results, fast http://get.live.com/search/overview --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---