RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-03 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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

2007-02-03 Thread Mark Peaty

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

2007-02-03 Thread John Mikes
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

2007-02-03 Thread John Mikes
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

2007-02-03 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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