Google says Thank you, I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible! Am 18.03.2017 18:40 schrieb "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>:
> FISers: > > In response to the message posted below, I received the following response > : > > liugang-...@cass.org.cn > > 谢谢，我将尽快答复你的电子邮件！ > > In order to facilitate communication of information, a translation of the > message would be helpful. > > Cheers > > jerry > > > On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > wrote: > > > List, Bruno: > > (My response to theMarch 13 message are interwoven in a red font.) > > While I appreciate the flow of concepts emerging from Bruno’s “poetry”, > its guidance appears to exclude chemistry and biology. > > We have something like: > > Number(with + and *) => Number's dreams statistics => Physics => human > biology > > > Thus, Bruno’s associations are not so clear to me. > > This provides evidence you have a sane mind :) > > So, I will be a “spoil sport” and look toward a more “life-friendly” flow > of both symbols and numbers with only a tad of poetry. > > > On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > The tensions between the computational natures of discrete and the > “continuous” numbers haunts any attempt to make mathematical sense out of > scientific hypotheses. I am uncertain as to the logical implication of the > “computationalist’s hypothesis" in this context. > > > If you are aware of the notion of first person indeterminacy, it is not so > difficult to understand how the appearance of the continuum can be > explained to be unavoidable in the digital-mechanist frame. The physical > reality will emerge from a statistics on infinities of computations > (including many with Oracles). Amazingly, in the digitalist frame, it is > the digital which remains hard to understand a priori, but the mathematics > of self-reference gives important clue. > > In my view, this is philosophy not related to the logic of the physics of > the atomic numbers. > Each atomic number has an identity. > That identity infers both mass and electricity and the corresponding set > of predicates that respect the attributes of the individual form of matter. > The computational logic of the chemical sciences is based on the coherence > of the relations that couple these physical attributes into the metrology > of chemical sciences. > The success of chemical computations on the atomic numbers is based on > compositions of atomic numbers (generating functions) and the metrology of > the emergence molecules, cells, organisms, human individuals. > > Bruno: How do you relate your methods of calculations to your identity? > Can you construct a clear narrative that states the necessary premisses? > propositions? consequences? Causal pathways? > > > > > Is the reference grounded in Curry’s combinatorial logic or otherwise? > > It does not. The reasoning is independent of any basic universal theory > chosen. > > Both chemistry and biology are based on the chemical table of elements and > the combinatorial compositions. > > > Provably so if we assume mechanism. Contrarily to a widely spread opinion: > mechanism is not compatible with even quite weak form of materialism, or > physicalism. > > The connotations of the term “mechanism” varies widely from discipline to > discipline. > The sense of “mechanism” in chemistry infers an electrical path among the > discrete paths of illations that “glue” the parts into a whole. By > sublation, this same sense is used in molecular biology and the biomedical > sciences. > > > Bruno, could you expand on your usage in this context? > > > Mechanism, as I use it, is the hypothesis that a level of digital > substitution exist… > > The events and processes of the chemical sciences are based on the atomic > numbers. > The “digits” of the atomic numbers are NOT substitutable for one another. > > > > > How do the senses of “computationism" and “mechanism” refer to the > material world, if at all? > > > The notion of computation is born in pure mathematics, > > Historically, it was just the opposite - computations gave rise to > (im)pure mathematics? > > The "universal dovetailer argument" ---that you can found here for > example: > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > > explains how the appearance of the material world has to emerge from all > relative computations. > > This explanation is not extensible to chemistry and biology because of the > perplexity of Coulomb’s Law. > > > God created the natural numbers, and saw that it was good. > > Would it be more accurate to that “"God" created the internal creativity > of the atomic numbers." > > > I was just saying, albeit poetically indeed, that the "theory of > everything", (still in the frame of the digital mechanist > hypothesis), can't assume more than classical logic + the following axioms: > > 0 ≠ (x + 1) > ((x + 1) = (y + 1)) -> x = y > x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1) > > > Together with (just below): > > > > Then she said: add yourself, and saw that is was good. > > > x + 0 = x > x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1 > > And: > > > Then she said: multiply yourself. > > > x * 0 = 0 > x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x > > And nothing else. > > These sorts of “computations” are not possible with atomic numbers because > the atomic have a tri-partite semantic meaning. “zero” is not defined. > “1” is hydrogen. Physical conservation laws negate the possibility of > multiplication of 6*8 = 48 (Carbon related to oxygen as carbon monoxide.) > > > I think these counter-arguments are sufficient to justify my assertion > that the logic of the atomic numbers differs from your views of numerical > logic and your interpretation of computationalism from chemical and > biological computations, including brain dynamics. > > The pragmatism of the chemical sciences is the basis of its success in > biology, evolution, and indeed, consciousness. This pragmatic perspective > respects the physical law of conservation of electrical particles. > > So, our world views are radically different from one another. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
