Re: Re: Qualitative calculations with binary numbers
Hi Richard Ruquist I worked with Chris for a number of years and we even met twice. I learned much from him and was sorry to hear that he died of lung cancer maybe 5 years ago. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 13:13:01 Subject: Re: Qualitative calculations with binary numbers The late Chris Lofting turned I Ching into a science and even was able to derive Quantum Mechanics from it, at least what he considered to be QM. http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/newindex.html On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/14/2012 8:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO in Platonia (the Eternal) all logical statements must always be either true or false forever. However, in this everyday world, where time is a factor, such necessary logical statements become contingent, and may only sometimes be true. And possibly not everywhere. The I Ching provides a numerical way of combining, separating, and systematically manipulating qualitative situations, since these have visually been associated to trigrams of binary numbers. For example 111 or all yang lines is male and yang-ish. 000 is female and having softer heavier female qualitites. Then combining and reading down from left to right, 00 is female 11 is male. 111000 or male over female is stagnation while 000111 with female over male, is bliss. Which is what womens' lib teaches. There's so much more to such manipulations that it would take a book to show them all. Dear Roger, On this claim I agree with you 100%. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 03:38:43 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 30 Aug 2012, at 04:40, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all computations have been performed in a timeless way. OK. And not only they all exist, (in the same sense as all prime numbers exist), but they all exist with a particular weighted redundancy, independent of the choice of the U in the UD. If so, it follows that the state that corresponds to my mind at this moment has an infinite number of instantiations in the UD (regardless of some arbitrary current state of the UD). In fact this is the only way I can make sense of the reversal, where physics emerges from the infinite computations going through my state. That's correct. Otherwise, I think the physics that emerges would depend in a contigent way on the particulars of how the UD unfolds. Yes. Whether the infinities involved with my current state are of the same ordinality as the infinitie of all computations, I'm not sure. But I think if it was a lesser infinity, so that the probability of my state being instantiated did approach zero in the limit, then my interpretation above would imply that the probability of my existence is actually zero. Which is a contradiction. This does not necessarily follows. We can be relatively rare. To exists more than an instant, we need only to have enough normal computations going through or state, but the initial state can be absolutely rare. The same might be true for the origin of life. Logically, as I am agnostic on this, to be sure. Bruno Terren On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating you. Brent On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. Brent -- 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
Qualitative calculations with binary numbers
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO in Platonia (the Eternal) all logical statements must always be either true or false forever. However, in this everyday world, where time is a factor, such necessary logical statements become contingent, and may only sometimes be true. And possibly not everywhere. The I Ching provides a numerical way of combining, separating, and systematically manipulating qualitative situations, since these have visually been associated to trigrams of binary numbers. For example 111 or all yang lines is male and yang-ish. 000 is female and having softer heavier female qualitites. Then combining and reading down from left to right, 00 is female 11 is male. 111000 or male over female is stagnation while 000111 with female over male, is bliss. Which is what womens' lib teaches. There's so much more to such manipulations that it would take a book to show them all. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 03:38:43 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 30 Aug 2012, at 04:40, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all computations have been performed in a timeless way. OK. And not only they all exist, (in the same sense as all prime numbers exist), but they all exist with a particular weighted redundancy, independent of the choice of the U in the UD. If so, it follows that the state that corresponds to my mind at this moment has an infinite number of instantiations in the UD (regardless of some arbitrary current state of the UD). In fact this is the only way I can make sense of the reversal, where physics emerges from the infinite computations going through my state. That's correct. Otherwise, I think the physics that emerges would depend in a contigent way on the particulars of how the UD unfolds. Yes. Whether the infinities involved with my current state are of the same ordinality as the infinitie of all computations, I'm not sure. But I think if it was a lesser infinity, so that the probability of my state being instantiated did approach zero in the limit, then my interpretation above would imply that the probability of my existence is actually zero. Which is a contradiction. This does not necessarily follows. We can be relatively rare. To exists more than an instant, we need only to have enough normal computations going through or state, but the initial state can be absolutely rare. The same might be true for the origin of life. Logically, as I am agnostic on this, to be sure. Bruno Terren On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating you. Brent On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at
Re: Qualitative calculations with binary numbers
On 9/14/2012 8:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO in Platonia (the Eternal) all logical statements must always be either true or false forever. However, in this everyday world, where time is a factor, such necessary logical statements become contingent, and may only sometimes be true. And possibly not everywhere. The I Ching provides a numerical way of combining, separating, and systematically manipulating qualitative situations, since these have visually been associated to trigrams of binary numbers. For example 111 or all yang lines is male and yang-ish. 000 is female and having softer heavier female qualitites. Then combining and reading down from left to right, 00 is female 11 is male. 111000 or male over female is stagnation while 000111 with female over male, is bliss. Which is what womens' lib teaches. There's so much more to such manipulations that it would take a book to show them all. Dear Roger, On this claim I agree with you 100%. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 03:38:43 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 30 Aug 2012, at 04:40, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all computations have been performed in a timeless way. OK. And not only they all exist, (in the same sense as all prime numbers exist), but they all exist with a particular weighted redundancy, independent of the choice of the U in the UD. If so, it follows that the state that corresponds to my mind at this moment has an infinite number of instantiations in the UD (regardless of some arbitrary current state of the UD). In fact this is the only way I can make sense of the reversal, where physics emerges from the infinite computations going through my state. That's correct. Otherwise, I think the physics that emerges would depend in a contigent way on the particulars of how the UD unfolds. Yes. Whether the infinities involved with my current state are of the same ordinality as the infinitie of all computations, I'm not sure. But I think if it was a lesser infinity, so that the probability of my state being instantiated did approach zero in the limit, then my interpretation above would imply that the probability of my existence is actually zero. Which is a contradiction. This does not necessarily follows. We can be relatively rare. To exists more than an instant, we need only to have enough normal computations going through or state, but the initial state can be absolutely rare. The same might be true for the origin of life. Logically, as I am agnostic on this, to be sure. Bruno Terren On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating you. Brent On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message
Re: Qualitative calculations with binary numbers
The late Chris Lofting turned I Ching into a science and even was able to derive Quantum Mechanics from it, at least what he considered to be QM. http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/newindex.html On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/14/2012 8:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO in Platonia (the Eternal) all logical statements must always be either true or false forever. However, in this everyday world, where time is a factor, such necessary logical statements become contingent, and may only sometimes be true. And possibly not everywhere. The I Ching provides a numerical way of combining, separating, and systematically manipulating qualitative situations, since these have visually been associated to trigrams of binary numbers. For example 111 or all yang lines is male and yang-ish. 000 is female and having softer heavier female qualitites. Then combining and reading down from left to right, 00 is female 11 is male. 111000 or male over female is stagnation while 000111 with female over male, is bliss. Which is what womens' lib teaches. There's so much more to such manipulations that it would take a book to show them all. Dear Roger, On this claim I agree with you 100%. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 03:38:43 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 30 Aug 2012, at 04:40, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all computations have been performed in a timeless way. OK. And not only they all exist, (in the same sense as all prime numbers exist), but they all exist with a particular weighted redundancy, independent of the choice of the U in the UD. If so, it follows that the state that corresponds to my mind at this moment has an infinite number of instantiations in the UD (regardless of some arbitrary current state of the UD). In fact this is the only way I can make sense of the reversal, where physics emerges from the infinite computations going through my state. That's correct. Otherwise, I think the physics that emerges would depend in a contigent way on the particulars of how the UD unfolds. Yes. Whether the infinities involved with my current state are of the same ordinality as the infinitie of all computations, I'm not sure. But I think if it was a lesser infinity, so that the probability of my state being instantiated did approach zero in the limit, then my interpretation above would imply that the probability of my existence is actually zero. Which is a contradiction. This does not necessarily follows. We can be relatively rare. To exists more than an instant, we need only to have enough normal computations going through or state, but the initial state can be absolutely rare. The same might be true for the origin of life. Logically, as I am agnostic on this, to be sure. Bruno Terren On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating you. Brent On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are
