On Saturday, May 26, 2012 7:48:41 AM UTC-7, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following: > > > > On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > ... > > >> In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question > >> historically. Your position based on your theorem, after all, is > >> one of possible positions. > > > > What do you mean by "my position"? I don't think I defend a position. > > I do study the consequence of comp, if only to give a chance to a > > real non-comp theory. > > A position that the natural numbers are the foundation of the world. I > agree that you often repeat the assumption for your theorem but I > believe that your answers to my question have been answered exactly from > such a position. > > > > >> In your paper to express your position you employ a normal human > >> language. Hence I believe that that the question about general > >> terms in the human language is the same as about the natural > >> numbers. > > > > ? (I can agree and disagree, it is too vague) > > When we talk with each other and make proofs we use a human language. > Hence to make sure that we can make universal proofs by means of a human > language, it might be good to reach an agreement on what it is. > > >> > >> Again, the ideal world of Plato was not designed for natural > >> numbers only. > > > > Sure. Although it begins with "natural numbers only", and it ended on > > this, somehow, because the neoplatonists were aware of the > > importance of numbers and were coming back to Pythagorean form of > > platonism. > > > > Now, with comp, or just with Church thesis, there is a sort of > > rehabilitation of the Pythagorean view, for the "non natural numbers" > > reappears in the natural number realm as unavoidable epistemic tools > > for the natural numbers to understand themselves, and anymore than > > numbers (and their basic laws) is not just unnecessary, it is that it > > cannot work without adding some explicit non-comp magic. > > > > I am not against non-comp, but I am against any gap-theory, where we > > introduce something in the ontology to make a problem unsolvable > > leading to "don't ask" policy. > > We are back to a human language. It seems that you mean that some > constructions expressed by it do not make sense. It well might be but > again we have to discuss the language then. > > Hi Evgenii > > > > Here is another opinion on the need for language: > > > > Simulations, models, emulations, replications, depictions, > representations, symbols, are different then existent instantiations, > exemplifications of the observable universe that are described by > mathematics combined with the human language constructs of units of > measurement. > > > It seems that the existent observable physical universe *encodes* > mathematics that human observers combine it with *necessary* language > created conventions of units of measurement that can be computed and it > (mathematics & language) then describes its appearance.
> > As for comp, I have written once > > Simulation Hypothesis and Simulation Technology > > http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/09/simulation-hypothesis-and-simulation-technology.html > > > that practically speaking it just does not work. I understand that you > talk in principle but how could we know if comp in principle is true if > we cannot check it in practice? > > I personally find an extrapolation of a working model outside of its > scope that has been researched pretty dangerous. > > Evgenii > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2lGTlFGP-4UJ. 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.
