> On 13 May 2019, at 08:31, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 2:43:39 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 May 2019, at 19:57, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >> wrote: > >> Is a theory of dark matter already lurking within TOA (Theory Of >> Arithmetic) ready to be derived? > > The goal was to explain where consciousness and matter comes from, in a > verifiable way, but for physics, we have got only that it has to exist, be > non trivial, non boolean and quantum like, with a highly symmetrical core > where information cannot be eliminated. > > > > > >> -- but as for arithmetic being "universal" among cultures, arithmetical >> abilities are also found in other animals, like birds. > > Yes. And pigeon are better than human is evaluating some (very particular) > arithmetical proposition. > > I am glad you agree with this. Some argue against the “objectiveness” of > elementary arithmetical reality by pointing that some humans have not yet the > notion.. This has been disproved, if I remember well. > > > >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence> >> >> >> Just as there is panexperientialism -- experientiality at various (proto) >> levels is found universally in all matter > > Below virus, I am not even sure what that could mean. With mechanism, some > digital code has to play a role. The continuum needs the waves to get the > natural numbers, and listen to the music of the prime, or the cacophony of > the baby universal numbers …. > > > > >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Panexperientialism >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Panexperientialism> >> >> -- and panlinguisticism -- ditto language -- there is panarithmeticalism. >> >> Matter has all these aspects: experiential, grammatical, arithmetical. > > Yes, and other aspect too, at least when we derive matter from the > imagination of numbers. > > It is like in Proclos, from the One you get an arithmogony, then a > psychogony, and then a cosmogony. Matter is when God loses control, and can > no more predict something to you, like its illustrated with the first person > indeterminacy. You might try the thought experience, to see what I mean. > > Bruno > > PS I see there are still a full discussion in this thread. Will read later. > Apology for the (3p or 1pp!) delays ... > > > > > > > "The continuum needs the waves to get the natural numbers, and listen to > > the music of the prime, or the cacophony of the baby universal numbers …." > > > I came across this a couple of days ago: > > What is a Line? > Can the arithmetic (the discrete) and the geometric (the continuous) get > along?
Yes, because the geometric comes from our intuition based on our embedding in a geometrical reality, and the intuition’s mathematics is given by the “& p” hypostases ([]p & p, []p & <>t & p), which “topologies” the semantics. The view from inside arithmetic is a continuum. Keep in mind that the physical reality comes from our indeterminacy on infinitely many local self-representation through infinitely many computations. > > http://vcho.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/What-is-a-Line-Axiomathes.pdf > <http://vcho.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/What-is-a-Line-Axiomathes.pdf> > > Since the discovery of incommensurability in ancient Greece, arithmeticism > and geometricism constantly switched roles. … Or fuse, like with the square numbers, the triangular numbers, the (crazy) pentagonal numbers (used crazily by Euler and Ramanujan in the partition of numbers), the cube numbers, the pyramidal numbers, etc. Likewise, with the notion of Turing universality, there are interesting notion of computational real numbers, and many topologies and geometries arise there. Incommensurability illustrates that the Pythagoreans were reasoning, and forced to correct their theology when digging deeper. The Church-Turing’s thesis somehow rehabilitates Pythagorus, in the realm of the finites, and mechanism extends this for the infinite and material, albeit phenomenologically. All mathematical constant used in physics appears to be computable, like in mathematics (pi is computable, e is computable, sqrt(2) is computable). Not all Schroedinger equation solutions are computable, as it is easy to build artificial non computable solution, like e^iH(q)t, with q a non computable real number. In nature this does not seem to occur, but it is hard to say, if we are machine, we cannot distinguish a non computable oracle/data from a computable one. That is why ontological commitment of non computable observable should be done only in the last resort, that is never. The non computable part of the mind of the universal machine is complex enough, and that one, we live everyday. Humans, like Turing machines, are essentially impredictible. You can add as many axioms to your theory of machines, there will always be a machines violating it. > > > ends > > The spatial subject[line]-object[point] relation, embodied in a (delimited) > linestretch, presupposes the uniqueness and irreducibility of the totality > character of continuity (Bernays, Brouwer and Weyl), Nicely said. > as well as the irreducibility of the spatial time-order of at once—and at the > same time it highlights the mutual coherence between the aspects of number > and space. Absolutely, and in more than one way. Here Riemann paper on the prime, and its use of the complex plane, is absolutely incredible, the same for a work done by Hardy, Rademacher and Ramanujan, in the theory of partition of number (a partition of a number, like 5, is a sum of number, in any order, which gives 5. 5 has seven partitions: 1+1+1+1+1 2+1+1+1 2+2+1 3+1+1 3+2 4+1 5 If the order would count, it is easy to see that n will have 2^(n-1) decomposition, corresponding to cutting or not a tape made of square, (cutting or not at their junction). But without the order it gives a rather mysterious extremely complicated, and complex (!), formula, which somehow classify the electronically orbitals, and this by virtue of subtle relation between the integers and the complex plane. This gives hope to get someday to extend in a sense full way the partial computable function on the complex plane. If there is a cubic Diophantine equation which is Turing universal, that would accelerate the history. Today, we have only square four degree Diophantine polynomial (already quite surprising). It is beyond the local horizon of mathematics. Anyway, *that* is an infinite, and infinitely rich story. > > > > "Matter is when God loses control, and can no more predict something to > > you, like its illustrated with the first person indeterminacy." > > OK. :) Bruno > > > @philipthrift > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e1ed91b-2d66-46d0-a87a-3457bec3bb12%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e1ed91b-2d66-46d0-a87a-3457bec3bb12%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D6DE9C1E-DCCC-4B54-8C80-0DD25DD09F99%40ulb.ac.be.
