On 07 Jul 2012, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno: here we go again (quote from Ronald Reagan).
The "vocabulary" of different (belief?) systems. You seem to abide
firmly at "axioms", meaning not more in MY vocabulary than
postulates to make OUR (actual, conventional, ongoing) theories
VALID. Changing theories make axioms invalid.
HUMAN? I doubt if we have a universally agreed-upon definition
(and please, count me into the 'universal) standing up to both
'living/nonliving' creatures, computers (as we knew them yesterday -
including the skeletally composed AI) with all the potentials that
can be filled in future, additionally, as it has been supplied in
the past millennia. Mathematical logic is IMO a human achievement of
yesterday. It is fine and supports our conventional sciences (more
than usually presumed so) but not the 'total' of an infinite view.
(What I do not have).
You may say: un-scientific, baseless, etc., I agree.
What I disagree about is a "firm" belief of "we know it all".
I can' agree more with this.
Not even 1+1=2.
But that is not all. We don't know it, perhaps. But we believe it very
strongly and use it daily, and it does not mean anything to say that
we doubt it. It looks like provocative for the pleasure.
Hence my joke of 1+1=11. Or Brent's 10.
Yes, a joke. I am glad you make this clear.
I claim: there are no numbers in Nature, it is us (allow me to call
ourselves: 'humans') representing observations of 'natural' hints
with their ongoing explanations into "number"-related (calculable?)
formulations. Hence (our?) arithmetic.
Here I do not follow you. I am more confident in the elementary
arithmetical proposition than on any sentences involving humans, which
are much more abstract and complex entities.
Actually, I don't really believe in "human". By "we" I tend to mean
all Löbian relative numbers, and this, on this planet, might start
from the jumping spiders. I still respect a lot the "lesser animal"
from bacteria to worms like my pet the planarians.
You say that there are no numbers in Nature. But is not Nature a human
conventional projection? I don't believe necessarily in Nature. It
looks like a fake God to me. But there is no problem with believing in
an even basic (ontological) Nature, but then my point is that you
might need to refuse the doctor proposition to get an artificial brain.
My point is logical. No theories can bring the numbers without
assuming them (implicitly or explicitly), and assuming comp we *have
to* entirely explain the "illusion of nature" from the numbers. Then
computer science shows that such an enterprise makes sense.
I am no saying that the comp theory is true, but it presents at least
a precise rational alternative to the Aristotelian naturalism, which
tend to eliminate person (human or not).
As I already explained: the (human) genius formulated out of such
theories an ingenious technology that is ALMOST good.
And I bow to that.
The difference between natural and artificial is artificial.
Technologies, like living entities can give the best and the worst,
and it is relative to what and who benefits from it.
Bruno
John M
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:45 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bruno:
"Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2
are just imagining something else." -
do you mean: "imagining something else
THAN WHAT YOU WERE IMAGINING?" sounds like a claim to some
priviledge to imagining - only YOUR WAY?
(I know you will vehemently deny that - ha ha).
To Guitarist:
"It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11"
You made my point - which was to (agnostically) expose that we have
no approved authority to a ONE AND ONLY opinion.
Not even within what we may call 'possible'.
John M
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
Hi Guitar boy,
On 04 Jul 2012, at 16:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hello Everythinglisters,
First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions
from time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more
musical tendency.
It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11
If people are sincere about pulling whatever sums they feel like
with personal justification, then we might as well say 1 + 1 = 0,
with a kind of zen logic, where everything = nothing as a fancy
justification.
Well in Z_2 = {0, 1}, we do have a law with 1+1 = 0. (modular
arithmetic). But 1 is still different from 0. But I get your point.
And anybody still willing to assert this could post their bank
account details and pin numbers and be freed from arithmetic
dictatorship by having their account cleaned out by other
everything listers that DO believe in sums, successors etc. as 0 =
whatever they want, and the sum of their balance doesn't really
matter, as it's only some personal belief shared by a few control
freaks.
Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2
are just imagining something else. It is not an arguent that a truth
is not absolute, but that the notation used to described it can have
other interpreations. In the Z_2 structure, which plays a key role
in many places: 2 = 0. But 2 does not represent the successor of of
the successor of zero, it represents the rest when we divide by the
usual number 2. It really means:
odd + odd = even (the rest of 1 + 1 divided by 2 = 0)
even + even = even (the rest of 2 + 2 divided by 2 = 0)
odd + even = odd (the rest of 1 + 2 divided by 2 = 1)
Guitar and composition imho, have arithmetic overlap, albeit in a
less than total sense, which is why I won't have to post my details
here :)
Guitar is hardest, imo. You need good trained digits!
Looking forward to contributing from time to time.
You are welcome,
Bruno
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:09:53 AM UTC+2, JohnM wrote:
Bruno asked:
..... Is that an absolute truth?
By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY
agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept
better expressions.
(Except for "absolute truth" - ha ha).
And Teilhard was a great master of words.
John M
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever
"WE" accept is "human".
Is that an absolute truth?
In my humble opinion, "WE = human" seems to me quite relative. When
I listen to the jumping spiders or the Löbian machines, most seems
to disagree.
Bruno
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are
spiritual beings having a human experience.
(de Chardin).
What is Mother Nature accepting?
John M
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain
peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more relatives.
John
Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of
Gennifer)=(One, me) and (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one
raindrop). So whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the
applicability of arithmetic to your model.
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-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 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/aa8ElOQLmdwJ
.
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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-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 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.
