truth

[Brian Tenneson]

I have many questions.

One is "what if truth were malleable?"

[Stephen P. King]

On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> I have many questions.
>
> One is "what if truth were malleable?"

> --
HI Brian,

If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
"standards" of truth varied, how could we tell? This reminds me of the
debate between Leibniz and Newton regarding the notion of absolute space.

--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following:

> On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>> I have many questions.
>>
>> One is "what if truth were malleable?" --
> HI Brian,
>
> If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
> "standards" of truth varied, how could we tell? This reminds me of
> the debate between Leibniz and Newton regarding the notion of
> absolute space.
>

If one assumes the correspondence theory of truth, then the question
would be if a reality were malleable.

Evgenii

[Bruno Marchal]

Right. Which leads to the question; what does Brian mean by "truth is
malleable"?

Would this entail that arithmetical truth is malleable? What would it
mean that the truth of "17 is prime" is malleable. It looks like we
need a more solid truth than arithmetic in which we can make sense of
the malleability of the truth in arithmetic, but I cannot see anything
more solid than elementary arithmetic.

Some truth can be malleable in some operational sense, but this will
be only metaphorical. For example the "truth" that cannabis is far
more safe than alcohol, appears to be quite malleable, but this is
just because special interest exploits the lack of education in logic.
People driven by power are used to mistreat truth, but it is just
errors or lies. I guess Brian's question is more metaphysical, but
then in which non malleable context can we make sense of
metaphysically malleable truth? Perhaps Brian should elaborate on what
he means by "truth is malleable"? It seems to me that such an idea is
similar to complete relativism, which defeats itself by not allowing
that very idea to be relativized.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

Bruno:

 

Doesn't it emerge in this respect "WHAT truth?" or rather

"WHOSE truth?" is there an accepted authority to verify an "absolute" truth judgeable from a different belief system?

 

JohnM

 

 

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hello John,

On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:43, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno:

 

Doesn't it emerge in this respect "WHAT truth?" or rather

"WHOSE truth?" is there an accepted authority to verify an "absolute" truth judgeable from a different belief system?

I don't think such authority exists. We can only agree on hypotheses, about such truth, concerning some domain of investigation.  

We can also agree on the existence or non existence of facts confirming some truth concerning some reality.

But we can bet such truth exists, even if we cannot believe it or know it "for sure".

Examples:

- Few people doubt that "1+1=2" is an "absolute truth", when 1 and 2 are used as the usual name for the standard natural numbers, and "+" represents the standard addition operation. Likewise for the whole elementary (first order) arithmetic.

- We usually don't doubt the mundane informations. So, 'Obama is the actual president of the US' can reasonably be assumed as absolute. I mean, with "actual", that "Obama is the actual president of the US in our reality" is the absolute truth. Not the proposition "Obama is the actual president of the US" which might be false in the universe next door.

Most theoretical truth are absolute, thanks to their conditional shapes. For example the existence of parallel universes in the theoretical framework of QM-without-collapse is absolute, accepting some reasonable definition of what is a universe (a set of events closed for interaction, for example). This is absolute as it is a theorem in QM-without-collapse (or of comp). Of course the proposition "parallel universes exist" is not absolute at all.

Bruno

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno, think about it as "absolute truth:

Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?

Respectfully John

[meekerdb]

On 6/27/2012 2:26 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Bruno, think about it as "absolute truth:

Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?

Respectfully John

Naah!  It's 10.

Brent
There are 10 kinds of people; those who think in binary and those who don't.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear John,

Dear Bruno, think about it as "absolute truth:

Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?

If  "11" is a notation for 2, then it is the *same*  "absolute" truth, just written with non standard notation.

If "11" denotes eleven (1*10 + 1), as it usually does, then it is an "absolute falsity", which contradicts directly what we have already agree on since a long time, notably the law of addition:

x + 0 = x

x + successor(y) = successor(x+y)

OK?

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

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

--

[Brian Tenneson]

What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17.  It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of "travel" to there.  The basic premise is that an omnipotent being has the ability to fool computers into thinking various things are true.

[meekerdb]

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

[meekerdb]

On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17.  It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of "travel" to there.  The basic premise is that an omnipotent being has the ability to fool computers into thinking various things are true.

It doesn't take an omnipotent being to do that - unless you think Rush Limbaugh is omnipotent.

Brent

[Brian Tenneson]

What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be 17).  Not manipulate the perception of truth.

--

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Jun 2012, at 22:18, Brian Tenneson wrote:

What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be 17).  Not manipulate the perception of truth.

You can just define a new addition "+" by the rule x + y = the usual sum of x and y added to 15 with 15 being the usual (s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))))))))))))))).

But again, this does not make 1+1=2 relative. It is just a change of the definition. It means we are not talking about 1, + and 17.

If you believe that a God can change the truth value of 1+1=2, with their standard meaning, then such a God is inconsistent with elementary arithmetic, meaning that it does not exist. I am not sure what that someone would even mean when saying that 1+1=17, with their standard meaning.

1+1 ≠ 17 in *all* interpretations of the elementary axioms of arithmetic.

Bruno

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17.  It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of "travel" to there.  The basic premise is that an omnipotent being has the ability to fool computers into thinking various things are true.

It doesn't take an omnipotent being to do that - unless you think Rush Limbaugh is omnipotent.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

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".

What is Mother Nature accepting?

 

John M

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

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 <meek...@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+unsubscribe@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

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

[Brian Tenneson]

The thread is about the possibility of an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is true.

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multipl...@gmail.com> 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. 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.

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 :)

Looking forward to contributing from time to time.

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+unsubscribe@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.

[Synes Thesis]

Yup, so anything goes from there. But I fail to see anything convincingly constructive, except maybe a few ideas for fiction, where everybody is omnipotent god that can manipulate truth. So fiction section in bookstore or Amazon?

[meekerdb]

On 7/4/2012 11:05 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:

The thread is about the possibility of an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is true.

I guess I don't understand that.  I can manipulate what's true.  It's true I am sitting at a computer - and I can stand up so it would be false.  So what's interesting about an omnipotent being (an incoherent concept) being able to do it.

Brent

[Stephen P. King]

Hi,

    It seems obvious that "what is true", as referenced below, is some kind of collection and that it's labeling can easily be seen to not be fixed a priori. We might think of it of a Kripke frame and the models have forced truths. The thing here is that we have to be careful that we don't box ourselves into thinking that the totality of all that exists is finite or even only countably infinite.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

[Bruno Marchal]

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:

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+unsubscribe@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Jul 2012, at 05:16, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi,

    It seems obvious that "what is true", as referenced below, is some kind of collection and that it's labeling can easily be seen to not be fixed a priori. We might think of it of a Kripke frame and the models have forced truths. The thing here is that we have to be careful that we don't box ourselves into thinking that the totality of all that exists is finite or even only countably infinite.

If we are machine then the cardinality of "reality" is  at least countably infinite and it is absolutely undecidable if there is anything more.

You might try to imagine an experimental set-up to test if the cardinal of "reality" (whatever ontology) is bigger than aleph_zero. It will succumbs to the dream argument (assuming comp).

But that countable reality, as seen from inside,  can also be proved to be bigger than anything nameable. But that reality is epistemological. It does not need to be reified (put in an ontology).

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

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

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Ok then, I guess I got caught.Confession: On most days, I am agnostically exposed ideologue of 1 + 1 = 2.

Please forgive the offense of my heresy. Maybe a prohibitive law should be drafted to stop these kinds of irresponsible thoughts :)

But "privilege to imagining"? He just said "something else", which implies no judgement or privilege. Sometimes something else is just something else, without "better or privilege".

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Jul 2012, at 22:45, John Mikes 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).

I meant "something else with respect to anything obeying to the axioms on which we already agreed, at the least. Like 0 ≠ s(0), x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y), addition and multiplication law. 

Actually it is a bit more, which is what the logicians call the standard model of arithmetic, and known as the structure (N, +, *) in high school.  But that is not really relevant here. The magic of numbers is that humans have a good sharable intuition about them.

Are you doubting that the s(0) + s(0) = s(s(0)) ?

If that is the case, nothing in math, physics, chemistry can make much sense, and I have no way to explain you anything in computer science. And you can abandon relativiy theory and quantum mechanics which are based on elementary arithmetic.

In fact, if you doubt that 1+1=2, then I have to doubt what you mean by telling us that we are humans, or that we are not human, and even what is a human. 

The reason to doubt 1+1=2 are more doubtable than 1+1=2.

 

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'.

That is why we do semi-axiomatic. 

The question is only: "do you agree with the axioms (together with classical logic):

0 ≠ s(x)

x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)

x + 0 = x

x + s(y) = s(x + y)

Then you should agree with 0 ≠ s(0), s(0) ≠ s(s(0), etc., and s(0) + s(0) = s(s(0)), even if we did not succeed in defining completely what are those numbers.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

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".

Not even 1+1=2. Hence my joke of 1+1=11. Or Brent's 10.

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.

As I already explained: the (human) genius formulated out of such theories an ingenious technology that is ALMOST good.

And I bow to that.

 

John M

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:55 PM, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> 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.

Well, it undergoes change as, you point out above, theories hopefully do.
 

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".

Where did anybody state or imply this?
 

Not even 1+1=2. Hence my joke of 1+1=11. Or Brent's 10.

Jokes have felicity conditions. The bar is set quite low when 1+1=11 is already a good joke.

Pragmatics in linguistics concerning humor is not usually my strong suit but: nobody I know would laugh, except maybe some crowd drunk enough or on drugs if a charming comedian opened with this, making the statement in some insecure stutter, with silences well placed, that they can barely complete the statement, a stone cold face, rising prosody on "one plus one...is..." and falling prosody on "eleven", ice-cold, lowest vocal register, spoken like a burnt-out depressed villain with bleakness in her/his eyes stating the obvious.
 

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.

As I already explained: the (human) genius formulated out of such theories an ingenious technology that is ALMOST good.

And I bow to that.

What almost good technology has been formulated? Excuse my ignorance, but guitarists are rarely even let into meetings about them; much less other meetings.

[Bruno Marchal]

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

Dear Guitarist (or: Cowboy?)

thanks for your lines.

I find 'humor' a fundamental essential for staying live.

Maybe it comes with another instrument than yours: I am a piano-player (both hands occupied for tunes, your nose hitting the key in the middle).

About the "almost good" technology? there are airplanes falling off the sky, genetic distortions instead of improvements. buildings collapse sometimes, textiles get torn/worn, military strategies fail, car-pneumatics get a hole, a space-craft blew up in orbit, however our technological world is a marvel. Copernicus could not imagine it. Nor Aristotle, or Plato. And we are adding to it every day. Did I answer your question?

And please, find your humor, for your own good.

John M

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Ok, John.

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:37 PM, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Guitarist (or: Cowboy?)

Some Cowboys play guitar. A lot of time watching the herd, and not every moment is management of threat.
 

thanks for your lines.

I find 'humor' a fundamental essential for staying live.

It is a need of spirit, less of flesh.
 

Maybe it comes with another instrument than yours: I am a piano-player (both hands occupied for tunes, your nose hitting the key in the middle).

Believe it or not, some pianists are not comedians and some pianists are not that funny.
 

About the "almost good" technology? there are airplanes falling off the sky, genetic distortions instead of improvements. buildings collapse sometimes, textiles get torn/worn, military strategies fail, car-pneumatics get a hole, a space-craft blew up in orbit, however our technological world is a marvel. Copernicus could not imagine it. Nor Aristotle, or Plato. And we are adding to it every day. Did I answer your question?

I cannot see how we can make such definite, absolute statements about the imagination of others. But if you must convince yourself, then please do.

Concerning technology: I do not give much credence to "technology as marvel, with some side-effects". In a context where authority overrules inquiry and critical questions, technology is quite irritating, no matter how many conveniences it brings with itself.
 

And please, find your humor, for your own good.

John M

This is quite strong; implying to somebody that their lives are without humor and packing that in benevolent sauce, of a "cook that knows what is good for me".

If you have to do that for some reason, then this is your business.

I thought you wanted to exchange about truth and/or humor.