Bruno, you are simply making assumptions which I consider unwarranted. Belgium is one such assumption. Your intellect is a number-construction as much as numbers are a construct of your intellect.
As for the flying (not white - this will confuse readers of the FAQ even more than they need to be) rabbits, I consistently argue that asking why rare things are rare is failing to understand anthropic reasoning. James ----- Original Message ----- From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 4:40 PM Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde > > I comment again George Levy for making > clearer where I disagree with James Higgo's last Post. > > * * * > > > I wrote: > > << George Levy wrote: > > >> BM:..Positive integers exists. Nothing else. > > >This is a integercentric statement if I ever saw one. > > BM: Oh ! George. You don't met Pythagore, or Xenocrate, ... > in the plenitude. Do you? >> > > * * * > > I should have answered: "Of course it is a > an integercentric statement!". > > After all godel numbering makes immaterial program > number like and a slightly poetical version of the > turing-tropic view (turing-centric) view is that > I am a number. > And here we are not a long way from Xenocrate definition of > the soul: "a number which moves itself". (Like a > practionners of comp can live if you remember the TEs) > > But of course "I am a number" taken literaly, is a > category mistake. From the third person point of view > I am much more like a cloud of numbers spreading in > a cloud of "real/complex" numbers. From a first person > point of you I am, obviously, a person, your servitor :-) > > > * * * > > James Higgo wrote: > > >Wat am I? Obviously, 'I' am an Observer-Moment. > > This is the same category mistake. You are no more an > Observer-Moment than I am a number. Those are intellectual > constructions. I am sure that if by chance you travel > to Brussels, I will offer you a cup of coffee. Why would I > ever offer a cup of coffee to an observer-moment ? > And how would I? The time to prepare the coffee and > you, dear observer-moment, disappear ... > > >This > >current OM, including writing this email, is not related > >to 'remembered' OMs except in that the 'remembered' OMs do > >happen to exist. > > So the 'remembered' relation (whatever it is) create a > link between observer-moments, isn't it? I need no more links > than that. > > >There is no"I" that was one OM and then > >'became' this OM. The block universe is static. > > I agree with both sentences. comp's block universe is UD* > > >Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is > >unrelated to 'my current' OM. > > I hope not. Why ? > > >But since all OMs exist I can be sure that > >there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this merde'. > > Of course. There is an infinity of such OM in UD*. > > I think we are disagreing mostly on pedagogy. Isn't it? > > To make that OM-sort of enlightment third person accessible (science), > we must still explain the rarity of the OM 'I am Bruno and I am > reading this merde in company of ten thousand white rabbits'. > > With comp there is a logical road to enlightment, modulo open > mathematical questions. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal > > > >
