Books/papers about mechanisms for ESPs ?

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Mar 20, 2018, 7:55:08 PM3/20/18
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.


Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any such kind of attempt. There are lots of theories for consciousness out there and many millions of pages written in the history of man with lots of interesting things about "normal" consciousness. But I never stumbled upon any paper that tries to bring any mechanism for ESP (for example, how can we account for precognition without dealing with temporal paradoxes? what view of time/consciousness we need to adopt in order for precognition to not be paradoxical and problematic? etc.). Anyone knows any such papers?

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Mar 21, 2018, 4:19:05 AM3/21/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Cosmin Visan on March 21, 2018 wrote:
>Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms
> for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly 
>understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any 
>such kind of attempt. 
.
[S.P.] I would place the horse before the cart: the phenomenon of ESP (extra sensory perception) cannot be properly understood without accounting for the mechanisms of consciousness.
.
[Cosmin Visan] wrote:
> There are lots of theories for consciousness out there...
.
[S.P.] How many "theories of consciousness" do you know? Can you name, at least, one? By "theory of consciousness" I mean the explanatory framework able to show how the physical sensory signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. For the last 20+ years I am in search for other theorist's version of the theory of consciousness to compare our results, but still in vain.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy


From: "'Cosmin Visan' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:54 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Books/papers about mechanisms for ESPs ?



Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any such kind of attempt. There are lots of theories for consciousness out there and many millions of pages written in the history of man with lots of interesting things about "normal" consciousness. But I never stumbled upon any paper that tries to bring any mechanism for ESP (for example, how can we account for precognition without dealing with temporal paradoxes? what view of time/consciousness we need to adopt in order for precognition to not be paradoxical and problematic? etc.). Anyone knows any such papers?
-- 

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

Kushal Shah

unread,
Mar 21, 2018, 4:33:41 AM3/21/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:43 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Cosmin Visan on March 21, 2018 wrote:
>Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms
> for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly 
>understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any 
>such kind of attempt. 
.
[S.P.] I would place the horse before the cart: the phenomenon of ESP (extra sensory perception) cannot be properly understood without accounting for the mechanisms of consciousness.

Here I think its important to ask what is it that we mean by the phrase "understanding". What do we actually understand about anything? When we say that we understand Newton's laws, what do we actually mean? And do we really understand quantum mechanics? In most cases, "understanding" only means two things : familiarity and mathematical framework. Familiarity with these phenomenon and with consciousness can only be gained through certain spiritual practices well described in Patanjali Yoga Sutras and other such texts. As for mathematical framework, it seems nowhere in sight and will perhaps be this way forever.


.
[Cosmin Visan] wrote:
> There are lots of theories for consciousness out there...
.
[S.P.] How many "theories of consciousness" do you know? Can you name, at least, one? By "theory of consciousness" I mean the explanatory framework able to show how the physical sensory signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. For the last 20+ years I am in search for other theorist's version of the theory of consciousness to compare our results, but still in vain.

If we are again looking for a mathematical theory, there is surely none. There are many philosophical theories, which are valuable in other ways but don't really help in any predictions.

Best,
Kushal.


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 25, 2018, 5:55:59 AM3/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 21 Mar 2018, at 09:24, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:43 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Cosmin Visan on March 21, 2018 wrote:
>Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms
> for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly 
>understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any 
>such kind of attempt. 
.
[S.P.] I would place the horse before the cart: the phenomenon of ESP (extra sensory perception) cannot be properly understood without accounting for the mechanisms of consciousness.

Here I think its important to ask what is it that we mean by the phrase "understanding". What do we actually understand about anything? When we say that we understand Newton's laws, what do we actually mean? And do we really understand quantum mechanics? In most cases, "understanding" only means two things : familiarity and mathematical framework. Familiarity with these phenomenon and with consciousness can only be gained through certain spiritual practices well described in Patanjali Yoga Sutras and other such texts. As for mathematical framework, it seems nowhere in sight and will perhaps be this way forever.

.
[Cosmin Visan] wrote:
> There are lots of theories for consciousness out there...
.
[S.P.] How many "theories of consciousness" do you know? Can you name, at least, one? By "theory of consciousness" I mean the explanatory framework able to show how the physical sensory signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. For the last 20+ years I am in search for other theorist's version of the theory of consciousness to compare our results, but still in vain.

If we are again looking for a mathematical theory, there is surely none.


I disagree. When we “interview” universal machines, which is what Gödel begun (using other terms) we got a precise mathematical theory of consciousness (and of god, matter, etc.). It is testable, as it put 100% constraints on what physics can be, and indeed it predicted quantum mechanics (before I knew it). 

The abstract form of that theory is the modal logic G*, which appeared in Solovay’s seminal paper (references can be found in my URL).

Bruno



There are many philosophical theories, which are valuable in other ways but don't really help in any predictions.

Best,
Kushal.


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABSgQwqu7H6uVZrvwbZNe%2BRbi6nhYF_hZi3qqDCoX7PqBFg3Tg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Kushal Shah

unread,
Mar 25, 2018, 9:03:25 PM3/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, I was referring to a mathematical theory of consciousness that is well accepted in the scientific community, and there is no such theory. People may claim many things, but it doesn't mean much till it has gone through a wide scrutiny.

Best,
Kushal.

_________________________________________

Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1BAA24C4-BD4B-4835-A264-A68461CF0DED%40ulb.ac.be.

Dr Uma Banerjee

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 8:54:35 AM3/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, mukho...@gmail.com
With my  limited knowledge about this subject,  probably Prof. AK Mukhopadhyay of AIIMS, New Delhi, India can help you .

Regards
UB 

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 21, 2018, at 3:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any such kind of attempt. There are lots of theories for consciousness out there and many millions of pages written in the history of man with lots of interesting things about "normal" consciousness. But I never stumbled upon any paper that tries to bring any mechanism for ESP (for example, how can we account for precognition without dealing with temporal paradoxes? what view of time/consciousness we need to adopt in order for precognition to not be paradoxical and problematic? etc.). Anyone knows any such papers?

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 26, 2018, 2:11:59 PM3/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 26 Mar 2018, at 02:52, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, I was referring to a mathematical theory of consciousness that is well accepted in the scientific community,


The scientific community use the mechanist hypothesis most of time, explicitly or implicitly, with the exception of those who assumes the collapse of the wave packet, but they are non longer a majority. The mechanist assumption is very general, it appears in the “Question to King Milinda”. But it has been made mathematically precise by the discovery of the universal machines (Post, Church, Turing, Kleene, …).




and there is no such theory.

You can see it as a meta theory. It is a general principles, which once made precise, describes precise constraints between truth, the believable, the observable, and the sensible.




People may claim many things, but it doesn't mean much till it has gone through a wide scrutiny.


Yes, and Mechanism make claims testable, and somehow quantum mechanics confirms it admirably, unless we believe in the wave packet reduction, which Feynman called “collective illusion”, if I remember well.

Materialism/physicalism is not logically compatible (except extreme “epicycles”) with Digital Mechanism. That is the fact, you can read my papers, as it represents one half of the work (the second half is the “interview” with the Löbian Number, which gives the testable logic of the observable.

There is more explanations in my other post of today (to you)

Best,

Bruno


Kushal Shah

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 6:58:46 AM3/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

The scientific community use the mechanist hypothesis most of time, explicitly or implicitly, with the exception of those who assumes the collapse of the wave packet, but they are non longer a majority.

Are you sure that a majority of physicists no longer believe in wave packet collapse?? What other way do we have to explain so many quantum phenomenon? Particle's popping in and out of existence in a quantum field? Thats just another way of referring to the wave function collapse.
 
Yes, and Mechanism make claims testable, and somehow quantum mechanics confirms it admirably, unless we believe in the wave packet reduction, which Feynman called “collective illusion”, if I remember well.

Can you please share any one testable claim of this meta-theory in the realm of consciousness?

Best,
Kushal. 

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 8:07:46 AM3/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> on March 27, 2018 wrote:
>Can you please share any one testable claim of this 
>meta-theory in the realm of consciousness?
.
[S.P.] A meta-theory, by definition, requires no proofs. It is just a set of postulates and general assertions about Reality we live in.
.
Unlike a meta-theory, the applied theory (for example, the applied theory of consciousness, ESP including) does require proofs -- it must possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power, be testable, verifiable, repeatable, and so on.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy

From: Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Books/papers about mechanisms for ESPs ?

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

Paul Werbos

unread,
Mar 27, 2018, 11:52:52 AM3/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:49 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any such kind of attempt. There are lots of theories for consciousness out there and many millions of pages written in the history of man with lots of interesting things about "normal" consciousness. But I never stumbled upon any paper that tries to bring any mechanism for ESP (for example, how can we account for precognition without dealing with temporal paradoxes? what view of time/consciousness we need to adopt in order for precognition to not be paradoxical and problematic? etc.). Anyone knows any such papers?


Thank you for your very serious and important questions, Cosmin. I have certainly attempted such an explanation or mechanism myself, and have some papers to point to. It does not really seem so tricky to me now -- but I still remember when neural networks and deep learning seemed SO incomprehensible to everyone else, and how many ways people have to find difficulty in seeing relatively simple things (especially when the simple things are entangled with other more complicated things and people's sense of identity and so on).  

Let me focus first on just one part of your paragraph: the question about MECHANISM for psi. 

Since March 1967, when I became open-minded about psi AFTER knowing about things like deep learning and neural networks , I looked far and wide for the kind of explanation or mechanism you are asking about. There were many papers which attempted to explain psi via electromagnetism or by quantum effects as such; however, Dean Radin has summarized his own conclusion here about the failure of electromagnetic explanations, and even QED-based explanations simply cannot live up to most of the basic psi phenomena. 

My claim: it is not possible to explain the "signal processing" or "switching" which can connect one person flexibly to other parts of the earth or humanity at will, without 
a model assuming some kind of CONNECTIVE STRUCTURE, which I sometimes loosely call "an invisible neural network." (Physically, dark matter and dark energy allow such a thing to be possible even if ordinary QED technology cannot see it.) See https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_conan_doyle_134512. 

This leads directly to the explanation for psi which I have developed, which is the only possibility I have seen or been able to find anywhere which does not invoke concepts of the supernatural or ideas like the idea that everything we experience is just a computer simulation. That explanation is 
the noosphere species theory, which is summarized (with links to citeable papers) at:


Some aspects of the idea are further depicted at:


I am sorry that I have not had time to put it all together in one integrated paper with all the details, but my time is ever more divided lately. Most of my recent papers have coauthors, which gives an indication of how difficult it is to manage many threads at the same time and how I depend on others more and more. 

Others on this list have pointed out that the explanation might be different if we DO invoke concepts other than objective reality. I do not claim to know that such concepts are false, but that it is hard to work with them in real life and I do not assign them more than, say, 30% probability:


=====================
================

That's just to address ONE of your sentences!!!

Psi by itself, and noosphere, are large enough... but yes, precognition and time create additional complexities. Levels and levels of them.

The initial level, simple precognition (what got me started in 1967!) , is actually easier to explain than the psi itself which it builds upon. Even in QED, the dynamics of the universe are symmetric with respect to time. What seems hard to explain, to begin, is WHY everyday life should seem to show such an asymmetry between past and future, when the underlying physics are symmetric. But the physical explanation is simple in retrospect:

P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.

It is simple, but until human culture fully assimilates this first step, it may be premature to go much further, except in narrow circles of those ready to do so. 
To assimilate this first step, the world needs to see the results of experiments which directly test and implement the explanation, which I have argued for in dozens of venues, such as: https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6168 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6168, and  a couple of quick more recent papers posted at vixra.org. 
These not only provide some way to test the explanation, but also ways to build technology which does the same. 

Dealing with temporal paradoxes, the next level, is more difficult. At www.werbos.com/NATO_terrorism.pdf (a citeable book chapter, which I know that prominent folks in the quantum group at Tsinghua have read), I give an initial view, but no one on earth has sorted out all the complex issues. 

Best regards,

   Paul





 

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 9:01:22 AM3/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 27 Mar 2018, at 08:50, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

The scientific community use the mechanist hypothesis most of time, explicitly or implicitly, with the exception of those who assumes the collapse of the wave packet, but they are non longer a majority.

Are you sure that a majority of physicists no longer believe in wave packet collapse??


Those who believe in it, and are serious, try hard to make sense of it, … without success, like de Broglie, or Bohm. 



What other way do we have to explain so many quantum phenomenon? Particle's popping in and out of existence in a quantum field? Thats just another way of referring to the wave function collapse.

It is simpler to just not postulate the collapse, like Everett, Deutsch and others (including Paul Werbos if I understand it well).

Then you get a picture of the physical reality close to what I extracted from arithmetic and Mechanism (long before I realised quantum mechanics without collapse is quite close to this).



 
Yes, and Mechanism make claims testable, and somehow quantum mechanics confirms it admirably, unless we believe in the wave packet reduction, which Feynman called “collective illusion”, if I remember well.

Can you please share any one testable claim of this meta-theory in the realm of consciousness?


The theory of consciousness is basically Theatetus’ old theory of knowledge (true opinion). Socrates criticised it, but incompleteness makes sense its rehabilitation, because after Gödel we know that we cannot genuinely define truth. The claim I made a long time ago is that if the mechanist theory of consciousness is correct, then the physical reality must be explained by some modes of self-reference (like probable and true, or provable and consistent) limited to the semi-computable predicate/propositions. Then the math shows that we get a quantum logical formalism together with an “obvious” many-computations arithmetical interpretation of arithmetical truth.

More precisely, take []p as an abbreviation of Gödel’s provability predicate. By incompleteness, as Gödel noticed already, that provability notion does not obey a logic of knowledge (the machine cannot prove []p -> p for all p), so we get all the following intensional (modal) nuances:

p (the truth of p)
[]p (the provability/believability)
[]p & p  (Knowability).     ——— gives rise to a quantum logic on p semi-computable.
[]p & ~[]f (Observability)  ——— gives rise to a quantum logic on p semi-computable.
[]p & ~[]f & p  (Sensibility)  ——— gives rise to a quantum logic on p semi-computable.

See Gödel’s original paper of 1931 for the exact definition, in pure arithmetic, of its provability predicate (or ask me, it is simple but tedious to give with all detail, and I don’t want to bore people with too much mathematical details).

To test the theology of number, just compare the physics “in the head of the machine” (described briefly above) with the physics inferred from the observation. It match well, and again incompleteness provides a way to understand the difference between quanta and qualia.

Best,

Bruno



Best,
Kushal. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 9:48:51 AM3/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


Clarifying wave function collapse.... 

Kushal: Are you sure that a majority of physicists no longer believe in wave packet collapse??
 Bruno: Those who believe in it, and are serious, try hard to make sense of it, … without success, like de Broglie, or Bohm. 

Kushal: What other way do we have to explain so many quantum phenomenon? Particle's popping in and out of existence in a quantum field? Thats just another way of referring to the wave function collapse.

Bruno: It is simpler to just not postulate the collapse, like Everett, Deutsch and others (including Paul Werbos if I understand it well).

In truth, the phrase "collapse of the wave function" is another one of those  shifting sands of semantics, which can easily turn into quicksand.

I do remember some collapse theories from Kafato's conference of 1988, which themselves collapsed. 

What's more, there has also been an evolution of thought in SOME quarters, as people stopped thinking of "measurement" as something which happens just at the END of an experiment, but as an INTERMEDIATE STAGE. I view the POLARIZER... the key "measurement device" in a Bell experiment... as the quintessential, best understood piece of quantum measurement... but LIGHT GOES OUT of the polarizer and can then be used in multiple further stages of a photonic system. 
In quantum technology, one uses many STAGES of macroscopic devices, from polarizers to their more complicated cousins (spin gates, especially)... 

What matters in quantum photonic technology is that there are DENSITY matrices at each stage, representing UNCERTAINTY about which wave function Ψ is
actually out there. The mainstream KQED model would say that polarizers DO perform a kind of "collapse", in that a pure state definite wave function gets mapped into a mix of possible wave functions coming out, represented mathematically as a linear transformation which maps a rank one density matrix to a mixed matrix. 

There is no difficulty in "making sense" of this IN THE SENSE THAT the standard model of a polarizer is mathematically well-defined, and widely used, and successful in its realm. There are two reasons to question this standard picture:

(1) One can ask "why"  polarizers behave in this way;

(2) One can try to look for alternative models, consistent with experiments done so far, testable with new experiments.

Did De Broglie really "fail" in (1)? In a way, that's like asking whether de Chardin's noosphere model was a failure. Yes and no. Key concepts have enduring value, and 
simply demand more effort to connect. But no, his complete work through the moment of his death did not complete his program. Better not to revive our old Bohm discussion this week. 

I have often proposed that my "MQED" modification of KQED fulfills (2), and reflects an analysis of the physics of polarizers. But on this list... I have to admit that
the new polarizer models DO entail a different KIND of "collapse", more or less a time-symmetric version of the old model, where collapse can occur from present to future, OR in the reverse direction, with some probability, where probabilities come into it because of the thermodynamics of the solid objects. 

Best of luck,

   Paul 


Kushal Shah

unread,
Mar 28, 2018, 12:24:22 PM3/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, if you are referring to the multiverse theory, it's not necessarily better or more sensible than wave function collapse. There are many who prefer the latter.

I still don't see any testable prediction of your theory in the realm of consciousness. It's always possible to construct mathematical systems to align with physical models of reality. That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.

Best,
Kushal.

_________________________________________

Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/19A79157-2BEB-42DA-B116-35CAC3F1E785%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 10:58:01 AM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I have no problem with what you say, although I am not sure what you mean by “different kind of collapse”. For me, Everett explanation (in his long text) is satisfying, except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic. 

Best,

Bruno



   Paul 



--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 10:58:01 AM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 28 Mar 2018, at 18:11, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, if you are referring to the multiverse theory,


I am referring to the idea of not adding the collapse axiom to QM, or in other word to the formulation of quantum mechanics without collapse. This leads to the “many worlds”, but the word “world” should not be taken too much seriously. In fact “relative state”is a better expression for this. 

Note that I have derived a many-histories “interpretation” of arithmetic well before I knew anything about quantum mechanics, which for me has been for a long time only a “trick” method to study enzyme kinematics.




it's not necessarily better or more sensible than wave function collapse. There are many who prefer the latter.

It is not a question of preferring a theory on another, it is a question of explains better the facts. The collapse axiom just does not make any sense to me. It is equivalent with saying that the Schroedinger equation is false for the observer, and it implies a dualism which requires highly non-mechanist axioms. 




I still don't see any testable prediction of your theory in the realm of consciousness.

It is the first theory which predicts the physical Maya, in a precise way enough to be tested, and indeed quantum mechanics (without collapse) fits admirably … up to now (in science we can never be sure, of course).




It's always possible to construct mathematical systems to align with physical models of reality.

Well, I start from the idea that a brain is Turing emulable at a relevant level for “keeping my consciousness”. Then the point is that there is no physical reality at all, but that we can and should explain the physical appearances from the mind of the universal machine or number.

It is not a matter of choice, and people can try non-mechanist theory, but the mechanist theory is the only one which fits with both the quanta and the qualia, in a very precise way. The apparently hard price is that we must backtrack (in Occident at least) to Platonism and Neoplatonism, and abandon Aristotle idea of physicalism or primitive materialism. 




That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.


? Hmm… You might need to study my papers. It says a lot of things of the subjective experiences. It entails their existence/truth, their non rational communicability, their undoubtability, their non expressibility, and it provides two entire mathematics for both qualia and quanta. It explains why they look different, etc. By expelling the whole of quanta, it is empirically refutable, and up to now, it fits completely (but the task of verge-fying this is an non ending verification process, like for the Church-Turing thesis, or anything fundamental). I do not claim any truth, but verifiable statements.

It also cut at the root all reductionist theories of numbers and machines. Indeed it unravels the existence of their private subjective experiences.

Best,

Bruno



Kushal Shah

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 5:08:50 PM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

It is not a question of preferring a theory on another, it is a question of explains better the facts. The collapse axiom just does not make any sense to me. It is equivalent with saying that the Schroedinger equation is false for the observer, and it implies a dualism which requires highly non-mechanist axioms. 

The many-worlds or multiverse idea does not make sense to many in the same way as the collapse axiom does not make sense to you. It is a question of personal preference unless we objectively establish which one of the two is right.
 
> That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.


? Hmm… You might need to study my papers. It says a lot of things of the subjective experiences. 

Please share any one paper of yours and point out the page/paragraph where you show how your theory leads to subjective consciousness. 

Best,
Kushal.
 

Paul Werbos

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 5:08:50 PM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Bruno!

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2018, at 15:40, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
I have often proposed that my "MQED" modification of KQED fulfills (2), and reflects an analysis of the physics of polarizers. But on this list... I have to admit that
the new polarizer models DO entail a different KIND of "collapse", more or less a time-symmetric version of the old model, where collapse can occur from present to future, OR in the reverse direction, with some probability, where probabilities come into it because of the thermodynamics of the solid objects. 
Bruno: I have no problem with what you say, although I am not sure what you mean by “different kind of collapse”. For me, Everett explanation (in his long text) is satisfying, except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic. 

Everett's PhD thesis attempted to derive the classical measurement rules (time-forwards collapse, Born rule...) from the dynamics but was not really able to do so. 

In

P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9

I pointed out that of course one cannot derive a measurement rule which is asymmetric with respect to time by using or assuming only the dynamics... but by using dynamics AND the boundary conditions provided by sources of free energy, one can derive a MODIFIED version of the measurement rules. At first, I used to say "this is an alternative to collapse," but really, I had to admit that it is a different KIND of collapse. To be symmetric with respect to time,  it must admit a probability for a pure state coming "in" from the future and a mixed state going "out" to the past, with a local probability the same as that of going the other way. (Total probability of a scenario is a convolution of all the local probabilities in the experiment.)

Best of luck,

   Paul

P.S. Of course, words alone are not precise. My papers at arxiv and my 2015 QIP paper give the equations which these words try to articulate. 

 


 

Best,

Bruno



   Paul 



--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 4:05:49 PM3/31/18
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
This topic is about ESP. Can you please refrain from posting off-topic? Thank you.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 4:28:17 AM4/2/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Paul,


On 30 Mar 2018, at 20:34, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 28 Mar 2018, at 15:40, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
I have often proposed that my "MQED" modification of KQED fulfills (2), and reflects an analysis of the physics of polarizers. But on this list... I have to admit that
the new polarizer models DO entail a different KIND of "collapse", more or less a time-symmetric version of the old model, where collapse can occur from present to future, OR in the reverse direction, with some probability, where probabilities come into it because of the thermodynamics of the solid objects. 
Bruno: I have no problem with what you say, although I am not sure what you mean by “different kind of collapse”. For me, Everett explanation (in his long text) is satisfying, except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic. 

Everett's PhD thesis attempted to derive the classical measurement rules (time-forwards collapse, Born rule...) from the dynamics but was not really able to do so. 

I agree very partially on this. I think Everett missed only “the mind-body” problem part of his theory. If you derive the Born rules from the first person indeterminacy on superposition, using mechanism, Everett work is incomplete, and the wave must be derived from the many computations which are executed in arithmetic.




In

P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9

I pointed out that of course one cannot derive a measurement rule which is asymmetric with respect to time by using or assuming only the dynamics…

The asymmetry is phenomenological. It does not exist “really”, in the 3p possible global reality, but it is lived genuinely from the first person view of the relative observers.


but by using dynamics AND the boundary conditions provided by sources of free energy, one can derive a MODIFIED version of the measurement rules.


This seems to me similar to the transactional formulation of QM in a non collapse formulation of QM. 



At first, I used to say "this is an alternative to collapse," but really, I had to admit that it is a different KIND of collapse.

I will proceed reading your paper to better understand this.



To be symmetric with respect to time,  it must admit a probability for a pure state coming "in" from the future and a mixed state going "out" to the past, with a local probability the same as that of going the other way. (Total probability of a scenario is a convolution of all the local probabilities in the experiment.)

I think there is only a pure state, even just one universal pure state, and that the mixed states are phenomenological internal indexical “subviews".

More on this latter, thanks for the link, best,

Bruno


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 4:28:17 AM4/2/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Kushal,


On 30 Mar 2018, at 19:02, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

It is not a question of preferring a theory on another, it is a question of explains better the facts. The collapse axiom just does not make any sense to me. It is equivalent with saying that the Schroedinger equation is false for the observer, and it implies a dualism which requires highly non-mechanist axioms. 

The many-worlds or multiverse idea does not make sense to many in the same way as the collapse axiom does not make sense to you. It is a question of personal preference unless we objectively establish which one of the two is right.
 
> That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.


? Hmm… You might need to study my papers. It says a lot of things of the subjective experiences. 

Please share any one paper of yours and point out the page/paragraph where you show how your theory leads to subjective consciousness. 


B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 
Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

You need to understand the Universal Dovetailer Argument ( first part of the paper) to get right my assumptions, and how consciousness plays the key role, and then the second part of the paper to understand how we can test the theory of consciousness provided already by the Universal machine. 

Best,

Bruno




Kushal.
 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 2:21:45 PM4/2/18
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Bruno, 

Where you say, """...except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic""",   in particular does your phrase "self-referiential arithmetic" refer to, imply, require some sort of nested or hierarchical structure of equations, or a recursion recipe?

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 4:45:04 AM4/3/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Ralph,


On 2 Apr 2018, at 20:10, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

Where you say, """...except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic""",   in particular does your phrase "self-referiential arithmetic" refer to, imply, require some sort of nested or hierarchical structure of equations, or a recursion recipe?


Yes. That nesting is offered freely by being a consequence of arithmetic Turing Universality. All universal numbers reflect all others universal numbers, like the Indra net of pearls all reflecting all the other pearls.That entails an infinite dynamical nesting automatically (in the arithmetical realm). They differentiate dynamically with more intriguing nesting, and nobody can even define the whole structure from inside, not even use any name for it.

Kind wishes,

Bruno


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 1:01:24 PM4/3/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,
Who are you calling no one?

The stuff inside and out is just NSD ... nested structured-duality.

R

Ralph,


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/E9B7E53E-C1F3-4C7B-97A4-BE9DF0DD71A9%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 6:00:42 AM4/5/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ralph,


On 3 Apr 2018, at 18:40, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno,
Who are you calling no one?

The stuff inside and out is just NSD ... nested structured-duality.

Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this (even without mechanism). 

Bruno



Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:43:27 AM4/5/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and
> substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes
> no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this
> (even without mechanism).

"Stuff" is "things." Doesn't your numerancy apply to counting _things_? Then
"stuff" is just "things" in indeterminate number.

If your numbers are real yet the things numbered are not, then it's as if
you life in a universe of adjectives but no nouns. If there's a pile of
things -- also known as "stuff" -- I can ask what kind of pile? Someone
might answer "red things." You might answer "7 things." You likely want to
say "7" is in a category far surer than "red." Numerous skeptics believe in
countable frequencies, yet not in the quales of those frequences in human
vision, for instance. Yet it seems you are more a realist about the quales.
(I am, anyway.)

You make numbers the most fundamental (things?). If numbers are things, I'd
say you call numbers the most fundament stuff. Or would you say "There's no
such stuff"?

Where you have addition as fundamental, that can be seen as a correlary to a
sort of non-numeric "division." There is nothing knowable in an
undifferentiated unity. Difference is required for any universe any being
may be conscious of. Difference implies division, differentiality. Once
divided, things are countable. So math comes in, by this account, right at
the beginning -- not disagreeing with you on that. Yet that can be the case
while maintaining math's adjectival relationships with stuff's noun.

I did meet a philosopher once who believes the universe is entirely
adjectival, and nounless. But we were drinking heavily that night, and I've
forgotten his name. He was quite excited about his claim.

Best,
Whit

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:43:27 AM4/5/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Bruno,

Pardon my slang of "stuff".    

Notice that in your storyline, part of it involves you starting out with a list of symbols: 0, +, *,s -- all of which have some structure and all of which are supposed to and do spawn recognition of their  nested structured~duality -- their associated meanings and values, uses and limits, etc.  Then you pare down your description to form other nested structured~duality  expressions  doing comparisons (usually with the equals sign (=), or other relational symbols) representing a balance or imbalance comparing of one NSD relative to another or others.  And then, it seems to me you express extended 1p, 3p, etc., associations which humans already have, applying them as traits of features of the initial nested structured~duality [0,+.*,s].  Not to mention ~your obviously nested:  s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0)))... structures. 

So, inside and out, these artifacts and their associations are all nested structured~duality.   Perhaps, for you, you consider such comparisons and balances of instances of NSD by instances of NSD within instances of NSD as "Mechanism", which you seem to have had a difficult time clarifying or describing to me and others as to what you mean by the term.  

Thus, where you say, """...and nobody can even define the whole structure from inside, not even use any name for it""",   I notice I do have and use a name for it.  Further, if you notice,   I am saying that nested structured~duality (NSD) is a, or the, underlying fundamental tenet.  It is the principle you employ to create your initial list [0,+,*,s], and the same principle you employ to fashion together the subsequent levels of NSD in your instance.

I guess within your instance, your approach is to assume or hypothesize that "mechanism", or  the instance of NSD that you begin with [0,+,*,s] and/or arithmetic and/or Turing constructions (which, themselves are yet other instances of NSD), are the fundamental or primitive, or whatever you call it. But then, ~after and during your  descriptive developments,  nesting and recursion also emerge in various places.
  
Why those anomalous appearances?

You apparently see it one way,  I see it it another.

Good luck!

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.



On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Hi Ralph,


On 3 Apr 2018, at 18:40, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno,
Who are you calling no one?

The stuff inside and out is just NSD ... nested structured-duality.

Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this (even without mechanism). 

Bruno




R

Ralph,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Robert Searle

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:43:27 AM4/5/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Hi Ralph,






R

Ralph,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5CBDF2C8-96A4-427D-9BB0-190C76E84077%40ulb.ac.be.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Apr 6, 2018, 5:10:28 PM4/6/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Id like to contribute several points.

1. To say "there is no X" when X is an element of a theory or observation, is silly..Witt is correct, if you number it, you have given it at least relative existence. Perhaps all it means, howeve, is to clarify, Bruno, that you do not believe in absolute stuff. I dont either, but certainly things become real and countable from a complex and unsefined origin. That is what begs explanation because in modern science and largely to present we have formalized it the other way around, experimenting with the idea that there is absolute substance that somehow turns complex. The experimental results are in, it is more parsimonious and explanatory to build science on a natural foundation of complexity. Then it is easy to derive both material 'stuff' and more complex and anticipatory life.

2. Math is much more difficult than numbers,  which are abstractions of natural existence. Limiting it only to numbers is appropriate for mechanisms alone, leaving out contextual causes that characterize complexity and life. That larger view cannot be reduced to numbers without semantic residue that is actualy the essence of the complex or living system.

3. There are many kinds of knowable differences that don't pertain to differences between things, as such. They pertain to differences between types. "Things" are locally distinct objects of analysis. Local means space and time coordinate differences..i.e, event differences. There is an unbounded set of potential phase difference irrespective of locality.




John
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1h_2KezrY8_F4MjPY3qWN0k4XrcIFyqhge1aYHA0szJHx3O6Rl6c3KZSQtWOiTQdNZql07pp8luEFVng6tOi8lNb5_YFntroXrEAs3Dj87fRVCPDnn0eDxdlLiwN27FbjSkYoJDAb6QehValThqwjm73ePslotppwsK4623U7n1ibQXt1WcmFeNmvCIUVS71PEWhTqVdRJqnV55CyKhK0NayaHVMrNd2x8jU_zRox_CNwMjKyPXDZk3mmDi3BufPvHKWvMfhmXFdY6j7h3BlXvuLw7JVsKKO-MbLyq8_AnXD_DJkVr9n5Mf4rewMd-ofQL_YslrIAhoni-w-odx8KlsXdWRJDWIYSMOOvadAvKX12avb_uVzSw7_KQ_BPUPGCWv6wcsEoNET0XHg7JPaqiNric_o2fZmr-b0apzO9p7t61H38q1X6NOxXYdRMZLK47mvsg97YU2ZMONxVV-8vYw/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org%2Fconference%2Fscienceandscientist%2F2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://secure-web.cisco.com/13hqoF6hsU-dhI3BhHbvZqFLP3HnsA6C_TO2KckNWSu675m7ysiTbg1t97zIsSzLsgHKBU3QdlLBAlhW2yMMeO-wI0GEE63ELknjWqy3UQ2Cxs-OpAe7zRRfl2tiSMMoNFpLba7NRyJEKoFjKK3DR0HWkD_DFLlHePGiOOuILG5YWhMMNdbkspS52izGSzlzphw9182Jj1k6xidEwPNN9QSbPjxRrraxBG2A6wZDZCU9JBK2CK6wD39lVXZ5vb9jo5LiwjOC9Art81ee1_foRU6P48Fzw_ItcsM9r0bEnsFbY4C_dMQ4CwE3HxnMl3_NmArs0k24__ZLS6CiBuBVmSFwn_7fsWQClDiUiYaiJhKnfddPrafzOc4qmxYcsYpg_JzndycVIvBkmMJMaGkXEtZHqEbgbeEgKCnyy1cLjzszc_hlJUNoeLEJP_n9Fugp7R2mwY2mU7PfQ_6WXtMpi9g/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fdonate

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)



Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1R6boCWw5cjvDZ955_JNaTyiG9DPDhu08YQu6NezWYY57elgzxFwwsJNMvT--RZbc3ypwrNkLNkcSaPYg7DSpalv46Z0I34JCGibGjrna2vvgCXZxukMUNLLXWcBIR20Ke68TfRGXO9u7d0eblYW8Dfc-z5_0rIHXeZnQshQpac1cOZTq6GwnuevTxIrqa7tbKq04_FREyAA6nLfdjEFE191F85PuV6uw1iaPZUkM_HeC9bJZGV9q3bXOIfecHknU1G_GaGuznn_igq2kVF5DzBA9YxG5GxD32nuZNjO8PERUcFVdMUgkC6EJCDfCm_fZhYFUh423w2FGvaCjPYeANbCLRGdUDaGiZFJV5a5uck56dVOUSURefQpbfDT78dMrXelsJkrWw9dSJZwH06FQMGL2WMtLDw_T7-EFnletaW0BZo0Oz4kTC83wQ4B_zvQRZq77UAT56AYWyxCgeDdO2w/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fharmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Xg11ke-pu2A1c_ID6hH0hKJ4Lg2lcU3NmwHHhMz2PG84fmQoNl2JVf0KHe_5jU-LyFDGhpxdS4fYBBhgnl2rYpOUzUm4bdpffKpwmWc88YA_XKyzwRvAgoGIOgk1MxQUGX1YqhXF0NcE0DjiIMbzfyKhCqZtPtHf13ZJhCGhPfoZwy5IpOunY74iKfUse5cHoc_9ExbPJ1oA8d_14BvNwGJpCOMW2v-UcIRHtRSirt0mz-YXz0ivWPZy0PRowtkxStemVid06tECwL3Zm8b_l7XagN6kImjpTd7bmf-xg_QKHgnErGLVpYEjFdWNKrI-6c0BJV4GFyOI_ZeTl9O7urVijYHL6pFRKyVxXyUIs8w8fUjTpB90GRk6Jd3dNz2TwpSoNS7VXTAPWOx4ABKgis-1sr8zsm9tvlv3-vTVp71T__I3FjlLqdvoZp3NCguyfxGlPl5izvW9DWBKRI0Agw/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2FDarwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1PnkBkkKeq5VVGZ7nVFAGw4WdoOeFkTixNMxPaG1G_KQmuxkY55S7GUDYaN6xLeEpPfROI7SaCEKdEUp2iBwbbwuiSev8NMXYkfg-AOOz8nmPJVPfO3pgn4osLyQkOs9K7nNgkgwK6VyhAhNKXeL2MGs-i6XeILH9pdywiSQvuiSG52Bt2LN-EXtOGqr4TCdSYVmxtIYO3XMvFqI9nRjhXLA_mA7ChdBCUgZbkacrbR4PmykG1agHNqWJqM2QDGjtYgsiOrChbUHtDIKZDZmAyhSltBFUjHdz1yAjLc80vAoEINoaFgZq4cwMPAd3Fx7M-LTGa6r9Fd-TmD6nQFlzsS5HfTXaUBgA1Rdp1QdWF0oajQ_ng1_ypPlHCpauGKHwqme63Vf6xGHLDaerqHEubexLBqOX7i9004pgXASTwBCxsfUFJrKYejN-I2bdkH8pU1femvbEZp2BvA55EYuXKQ/http%3A%2F%2Fbviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Q7TXs0I7-Uq81WJzpiK12UfrWr00ZoncKtV1LMO8gZmmS_YqTB-veGcUKBODm6tfh_4noURpcV-_-dUJ1Y5SNCsTG35uLEHx9Zh7L5s8sUJW_EA7sfSf14fJ1kTmRgKsw_lozMMG2JAzdTI99TC7jsfxQOXCOZQgq2CrKB7rqNkMGKTe4y_1nfvWOIecyP0xaTTulb5WyB6R7R4yo8bbivr1yS-Y-GwpFKiwtoqUlWcH4QwVwaitfkmzcxatLvQ7Elsi0vYHjoEOEw9H-Vy6ebOrclrphIV7v0nBaUni9QTBGQfXU_z57VUuudLSWA1x1EQPlKb4Xd6Z9vbaez0u5GsMP-yvkODe-YPvdFFuFMyEH48bnv5LpL3QxrsvruRP42QTya4YeN92crd7MXVwHR_zmVwbjmL2alYJ-ryRfcMyc4iLeb73KvgsxPs1NOLSGGYQvTnV6ycB-IMMEeUObw/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://secure-web.cisco.com/16-ag_CuHaLdt8fq8X4rBtulpmD61Bj0CZ8z2eM2K8QZWJ8W2idzBpX55DMuUkqJ2hiKf5oIbYLosLbivH-tcLr7iJGW4NKelslYmYUUOzHQMTtg3hDV-M3zRkDrLpY35Kj6lzXj2TsRYv4vIXr78GZmWwmTxQebKp5UbpoTIe1EpDzrtq_Ht6_yUSc9-_y1Xiq20zT2O3u9u_OnNeEEVZ3a9zkW6R36-cbfcHza86tnIXWMlm-EzqZXaPXj7wIM9edsw9cygB9B1LJMfR2pl0s8xcu_URI__Tqbi62rolK99WADAWMeD6xkN4RPKri7p-cbmYU-G2PZ460b67ulMs_DqcfJPhZrnjlUHZlMf6RW9YydOsnlY_zzNw4RiTW_doMzGmA2P8SL4kYwkz_lBL6mL5GZkm_oWYv3JwtNW-AFFxesw9-bnOlHYyBHBxlZBvggnv85joteEYPdj22Ukaw/http%3A%2F%2Fmahaprabhu.net%2Fsatsanga

Contact Us: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1gOVf3oPFDFq5CzRnXUVSyGHNmG2OboW5mBIVRJrUYpW-m4k8OA134IVCaxJHiOAOq3aJEGvMCiiSyuPRpM7r1kGGrrCTU78Cmz5REGaLfxhoG5rES4nhx-QWBVKME3AL6lgRQoCcCshiFwAINK96Y--H2ANxrAPixRZRT1r8LPfEmdo0x1Fs8Mknqa1xIvZYIDfNyg6h9rRvw7weuJrPRQCzXqmaKyx4mE3G5sY5baIfbuSy40NndcrNNtblM0z0QxNuOnb2PWBVFpfOg0NmEq1gqaNMa8oozkQcEYpiAoAug-2P5OJ_Ptkw-Q_93etJLXCa8Ady-mXXU5acbwDnWtTr7BEw4o6mi9bcDjdKhZ_ByhlruDRokPmidVPI1AWCuAX6U7WQWv4T3OA7Nbp0kdM74YgtkioH6O8oD8JQO1Rtnx7Z4rHFlCSIj3MdfRyZrJyoq0bDSOB0778mIODQ0A/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org%2Fcontact

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 8, 2018, 12:37:41 PM4/8/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

> On 5 Apr 2018, at 15:33, Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and
>> substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes
>> no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this
>> (even without mechanism).
>
> "Stuff" is "things." Doesn't your numerancy apply to counting _things_? Then
> "stuff" is just "things" in indeterminate number.

OK, but then the only stuff I assume are the natural numbers, and the only laws I assume are the laws of addition and multiplication. Then from that I can explain why numbers get “hallucinated” into believing in many other kind of stuff, like death and taxes for example, or real numbers and atoms, etc.
In science we propose theories, and confront them with the facts.




>
> If your numbers are real yet the things numbered are not, then it's as if
> you life in a universe of adjectives but no nouns.

The dreams are real from the numbers first person (plural) points of view.



> If there's a pile of
> things -- also known as "stuff" -- I can ask what kind of pile? Someone
> might answer "red things." You might answer "7 things." You likely want to
> say "7" is in a category far surer than "red.”





Red is rather sure too, but only as a personal subjective experience, which can be explained by the arithmetical and non arithmetical modal self-referential view that are enforced to the numbers by the addition and multiplication laws.




> Numerous skeptics believe in
> countable frequencies, yet not in the quales of those frequences in human
> vision, for instance. Yet it seems you are more a realist about the quales.
> (I am, anyway.)

Yes, quake are explainable in term of relation between computations an arithmetical truth (a not arithmetical notion, yet guessable by numbers trying to explain what they live).




>
> You make numbers the most fundamental (things?).


Any universal machinery would work. I use often the combinators:

K is a combinator,
S is a combinator, and if x and y are combinators then all combination (x y) is a combinator.

Then the following laws (Feys-Curry-Schoefinkel axioms) make the combinators into a universal machinery:

((K x) y) = x
(((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z))

I use numbers only because people are more familiar with them. If you use the combinators you can prove the existence of the numbers and their laws. If you use the numbers instead, you can prove the existence of the combinators. Any Turing universal system will work. Physics and theology is “machine independent”; which means it does not matter which universal system you are postulating.





> If numbers are things, I'd
> say you call numbers the most fundament stuff. Or would you say "There's no
> such stuff"?


OK. I could use “stuff” for the numbers, but this can lead to one of the error made of the pythagorean: believing that the material object are made of numbers. But material objects are only dreamed by the numbers, so it is a dangerous metaphor.




>
> Where you have addition as fundamental, that can be seen as a correlary to a
> sort of non-numeric "division." There is nothing knowable in an
> undifferentiated unity.

The universal number (entirely definable using only succession, addition and multiplication) makes the differences, some “objective” like “17 is prime & 18 is not prime”, and other subjective like “what beautiful lasting sunshine!”.




> Difference is required for any universe any being
> may be conscious of.

From the axioms I gave, you can prove that 0 ≠ s(0), and s(0) ≠ s(s(0)).

OK, for the combinators I have to add some identity axioms, and that K ≠ S.



> Difference implies division, differentiality. Once
> divided, things are countable. So math comes in, by this account, right at
> the beginning -- not disagreeing with you on that. Yet that can be the case
> while maintaining math's adjectival relationships with stuff's noun.

As long as we distinguish carefully what we assume (simple number ontology for example here) and things which are derived, like the phenomenological physics,(and the whole theology), there will be no problem. Then we test the theory by comparing it with observations.

>
> I did meet a philosopher once who believes the universe is entirely
> adjectival, and nounless. But we were drinking heavily that night, and I've
> forgotten his name. He was quite excited about his claim.

In Vino Veritas, as the French says in Latin (truth is in the wine), but some other plants are healthier for similar effects :)

Best,

Bruno



>
> Whit
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20180405133333.GA20331%40black.transpect.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 8, 2018, 12:37:41 PM4/8/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 6 Apr 2018, at 22:42, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

Id like to contribute several points.

1. To say "there is no X" when X is an element of a theory or observation, is silly..Witt is correct, if you number it, you have given it at least relative existence.

That is exact. I emphasise “relative” existence. I use existence in the sens of first order classical logic, so prime numbers exists, odd number exists, and the binary usual order on N exists, as it can be defined by some arithmetical formula.

But the phenomenologies are defined in term of the self-referential abilities of the number with respect to their most probable computations (which are an arithmetical notion, as not all people are aware of).



Perhaps all it means, howeve, is to clarify, Bruno, that you do not believe in absolute stuff.

I don’t believe in absolute, or underivable in a simpler theory, material stuff. 

We could use stuff for the primitive object we agree on, like numbers, and or, digital machines, programs, etc. But as I said, it can lead to the wrong idea that an electron would be made of numbers, when an electron will more happen to be like an invariant for number changes of mind (to be short).




I dont either, but certainly things become real and countable from a complex and unsefined origin.


And with mechanism, we can take any universal machinery as the origin. They all gave the same theology, and the same cosmogony, even, the same right for all universal numbers.



That is what begs explanation because in modern science and largely to present we have formalized it the other way around, experimenting with the idea that there is absolute substance that somehow turns complex. The experimental results are in, it is more parsimonious and explanatory to build science on a natural foundation of complexity. Then it is easy to derive both material 'stuff' and more complex and anticipatory life.

2. Math is much more difficult than numbers,  


That is what we taught before Gödel, but today we know that the natural numbers, or the integers, are far more difficult than the real numbers, which appears to be only excellent tools for the numbers when they try to understand themselves, which is an infinite task; but with self-accelerating channels (in arithmetic). 

Before Gödel, mathematicians were trying to secure the use of the infinities by the use of the finites. 
After Gödel, mathematicians noted that to secure the finites, all the infinities are not enough.

The universal machine is not really an explanation, despite its simplicity. It is an unknown, and all its relative incarnation are a promise of difficulties and unpredictability.



which are abstractions of natural existence. Limiting it only to numbers is appropriate for mechanisms alone, leaving out contextual causes that characterize complexity and life.


Yes, but keep in mind that this is already the case for the machine. The partial computable is a very tiny part of the arithmetical truth, and the total computable is a non definable subpart which mirror the whole truth but only partially, at least in the relative situation. The computability theory is mainly the description of layer of non-computability, and unsolvability.

Then, I don’t claim truth, but only testability of the hypothesis that we can survive with an artificial digital brain prosthesis, and then I show that quantum mechanics is quite an ally of computationalism.




That larger view cannot be reduced to numbers without semantic residue that is actualy the essence of the complex or living system.

But incompleteness guaranties that the machine will get the semantic residue, despite she will not be able to prove it to any another machine.

Could you? The machine, when Löbian, that is aware of its universality (in the greek sense translated in arithmetic) can understand eventually why she can’t prove that she got the semantic residue (nice terming!).




3. There are many kinds of knowable differences that don't pertain to differences between things, as such. They pertain to differences between types. "Things" are locally distinct objects of analysis. Local means space and time coordinate differences..i.e, event differences. There is an unbounded set of potential phase difference irrespective of locality.




Yes, and the 8 intensional variants of the machine self, or Gödel provability predicate gives already 8 nuances, which we are bound to confuse. The machine" looking inward”, even without having had any sense, can distinguish


Truth.  p
Provable/believable.   []p
Knowable    []p & p
Observable []p & ~[]f
Sensible []p & ~[]f & p 

That makes 8, because three of them split along the provable truth distinction.

Geometry, analysis and physics,appears to all machines, in dreams, more or less deep and entangle to highly probable (Normal) computations.

To get the substances of this, I recommend first the Martin Davis Book “Computability and Unsolvability”. It asks for some work, I know.

Best,

Bruno





(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 8, 2018, 12:37:41 PM4/8/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 5 Apr 2018, at 16:33, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Bruno,

Pardon my slang of "stuff".    

Notice that in your storyline, part of it involves you starting out with a list of symbols: 0, +, *,s -- all of which have some structure and all of which are supposed to and do spawn recognition of their  nested structured~duality -- their associated meanings and values, uses and limits, etc. 

Not at all. At some point, when we arithmetize arithmetic, we use number for the symbol “0”, “+” “*”, “s”, “(“ and “)". For exemple we can use odd numbers for each symbol “0” is 3, “s” is 5, “(“ is 7, “)” is 9, etc. We can use the even numbers for the infinitely many variables x, y, z, x1, y1, z1

Then by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which says that all numbers have a *unique* ordered prime decomposition, we can translate in arithmetic a sequence of symbols like "s(0)” by, using the association given above:  (2^5) *( 3^7) * (5^3) *(7^9). Here the exposed 2, 3, 5, 7, are the ordered prime numbers.

As I said, I assume only classical logic (intutionistic would also work, but it is more tedious, and the theology is made artificially weirder) and the axioms:

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Then, we can code in arithmetic that theory by 2 ^ (the number for "0 ≠ s(x)”) * 3 ^(the number for "s(x) = s(y) -> x = y”) * … up to the last axioms, and we can define “proof” in arithmetic, and then study what that numbers can prove about its ability of proving, and, using some tools of mathematical logic, study the relation between such proof and truth, and shown that they are complex, including true but non provable proposition, a logic of knowledge for “provable and true”, a logic of observation for “provable and consistent”, and even, handy to understand the qualia, a logic for provable and true and consistent, which indeed gives a quantum logic, well two quantum logics, as it separates on provable and true.


Then you pare down your description to form other nested structured~duality  expressions  doing comparisons (usually with the equals sign (=), or other relational symbols) representing a balance or imbalance comparing of one NSD relative to another or others.  And then, it seems to me you express extended 1p, 3p, etc., associations which humans already have,

Yes, but by using what Gerson calls the standard theory of knowledge, and that gives a modal logic satisfying at least the analytical epistemology. It actually attach a knower to a machine which can only believe, but the machine or number can be aware of that, notably the Löbian number, which are (Turing) universal, and knows that they are universal.



applying them as traits of features of the initial nested structured~duality [0,+.*,s].  Not to mention ~your obviously nested:  s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0)))... structures. 

Yes, that is how the theory describes 1, 2, 3, … Don’t forget 0. 

But as you see, the machine/number can distinguish 3 , that is s(s(s(0))), from a description of 3, the number of the sequence of “s”, “(“, … “)”.





So, inside and out, these artifacts and their associations are all nested structured~duality. 


The important things will be the self-referential correctness of the numbers, it put a very strong constraint of what the physical can be viewed by the numbers. 



 Perhaps, for you, you consider such comparisons and balances of instances of NSD by instances of NSD within instances of NSD as "Mechanism", which you seem to have had a difficult time clarifying or describing to me and others as to what you mean by the term.  

Mechanism is defined in sane04, which I refer to you. It is simply a digital version of Descartes Mechanism. It is the idea that you can survive with an artificial *digital* mechanism. Then a reasoning shows that physics and the whole theology is entirely accessible, at the propositional level, by any universal number by simply (but very deeply) introspecting itself. 




Thus, where you say, """...and nobody can even define the whole structure from inside, not even use any name for it""",   I notice I do have and use a name for it. 

Hmm… it might mean that you are working in a non Mechanist theory. No problem. Be sure the doctor gives you an artificial digital brain without asking!



Further, if you notice,   I am saying that nested structured~duality (NSD) is a, or the, underlying fundamental tenet. 

In my opinion, you give to much importance to a formalism, or to an idea, and I am still waiting some light on what you mean by nested structured~duality. 





It is the principle you employ to create your initial list [0,+,*,s], and the same principle you employ to fashion together the subsequent levels of NSD in your instance.


Either your NSD is Turing universal, and then that remark is correct, but a bit trivial as all universal number can imitate each others (that plays some role in why choosing one or another at the base will not change anything).

Or your NSD is not Turing universal, but then you will need a highly more complex theory of matter to singularise the mind. Well, I should add nuances to be correct, but that would become technical. 

(Or I miss the point).





I guess within your instance, your approach is to assume or hypothesize that "mechanism", or  the instance of NSD that you begin with [0,+,*,s] and/or arithmetic and/or Turing constructions (which, themselves are yet other instances of NSD), are the fundamental or primitive, or whatever you call it.



Not at all. At the onset, I assume only that I can survive with a digital brain. You can see this as the belief in the possibility that we can survive with a brain prosthesis, like most people agrees that we can survive with an artificial heart, or artficial kidney, or artificial skin, or whatever. 

Then a reasoning shows that the physical reality is the border of the universal mind, which is the mind of “virgin” universal numbers: it is the “initial consciousness” before it differentiated into the ten thousand dreams, illusion, and prejudices, ...




But then, ~after and during your  descriptive developments,  nesting and recursion also emerge in various places.

Yes. Computer scientists distinguish many kind of recursion and nesting, and dualities. Those notion are crucial in modern logic and computer science. The programming language LISP does not even hide the nesting, like the combinators actually.

I remind you that II share your interest and intuition of nesting, structure, and dualities, but I was just annoy you seem to exclude the number or digital machines from the discussion. I really appreciate the universal number because they have infinitely less prejudices than us, poor humans/animals having an incredibly long and complex histories. The universal machine have the “zen of the beginners” well described by many zen master, or Alan Watts. They are worth to be listened.




  
Why those anomalous appearances?

You apparently see it one way,  I see it it another.


?

Not sure what you mean here. Unless you persist in segregating the machines. I guess you will be angry against your daughter if she marries a guy who, after a grave accident, got a brain prosthesis (and for the metaphysical and theological conclusion, that storyline can happen tomorrow or in 1 million years, that change nothing logically).

Best,

Bruno




To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Apr 8, 2018, 6:15:45 PM4/8/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,
I suppose one can begin with any assumption, but the results will not be the same. This  makes your assumption clear, and it is the root of what I could not comprehend about your approach. 

There is no point in referencing Rosen in this case (our prior discussion). He was certainly a 'qualified realist' meaning that he took matter and energy to be real, but not fundamental. On that you might agree, but not on what might be considered fundamental. For Rosen, and myself, we must consider a complex unity, that is not directly knowable, to be fundamental. Otherwise there is no escape from the problem of conflating existence with description. If a complex unity is taken as the foundation, then what we can know are dual aspects of that unity. Description becomes dual and abstract in the sense that it is 'taken away' or 'out of' that real unity. So Rosen pointed out that there is nothing more abstract than a numerical measurement because it is a severe reduction of the complex reality. It also follows that such analysis -- taking  nature apart into abstractions, like numbers -- is irreversible. Synthesis of those abstractions will not return the original ontology.

So, it is fine to stay in the world of numbers and to build descriptions accordingly, but it is a reductive approach that loses something fundamental. The dual aspects of any description; structure-function, mind-body, subject-object, local-nonlocal, wave-particle, discrete-continuous, behavior-origin -- all necessary complementarities in any descriptive approach known so far, contain an implicit relation between complements. My and Rosen's fundamental reality assumption is that relation itself. Only one of the complements leads to a discrete world that can correspond with numbers. The other complement is not discrete in space and time, so if numbers are used to describe it one cannot use those dimensions. It is a domain of overlapping potentialities or as some say qualia. It is a modeling domain where discrete states decided by events imply continuous functions. It inverts the process of abstracting discrete states from a system. The inversion is context dependent, so there is  ever complete reversibility. Hence change, hence evolution, hence expansion.

I don't know what qualia are intrinsically except they are the natural memory of events inverted into functions that could produce similar events (recall or materialization). They are the felt experience of an event taken out of locality and perhaps placed in a relativistic locality (microtubules in living beings, the surface of black holes in nature, ?). 

Can that nonlocal domain be a numerical phase-space? It is inverse to discrete local existence where numbers can have meaning with regard to events in spacetime. Logically it should be a continuous domain. This is where we use numerical approximation to continuity or infinities. We may still use numbers to describe phase, but then granularity/precision does not correspond to any fundamental difference in identity, only error in description. We must assume continuous functions in nonlocal reality.

Now, if you ask me to prove that the nonlocal domain is continuous and not discrete I would have trouble, because we can only observe discrete results of it. A difference has to be a noticeable difference. And a Planck limit seems to apply to realizations.  But I believe it is the case that too implies a continuous nonlocal domain, because while any difference in the event world must be a discrete difference, the possible values given such discrete pairing are nevertheless continuous. In other words [I  need to get confirmation on this] uncertainty is a definite bracket around continuous possibilities. If that is the case, nature is not per-discretized or prescribed until you get to discrete realization possibilities that fit into a pre-defined world. The world thus 'selects' from non-descrete possibilities, but may only be able to accept certain values that are allowed by the worldly system doing the selecting. Thus we get discrete energy, spin, etc states that correspond logically with history.

So, I would be highly skeptical of a philosophy bases on a presumed fundamental reality of numbers. Like Ptolemy who thought circles are perfect so he based his cosmology on circles, because of the power of numerical methods we might think that numbers are perfect and thus base our cosmology on them. But it would be another Ptolemeic system, grounded in the description.  In all such mistaken conflations between descriptive methods and the realism of inquiry about presumed nature, as Ive mentioned before, it is like going to a fine restaurant and eating the menu  instead of the meal. Neither the numerical description nor the stuff are real by themselves. The context-content relation is our closest notion of reality today, and that approaches the idea of general consciousness.



two ontological (understand that this term also means unknowable)

John
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1CXfXjHrgCrPF3sEPLBL8ec0takSzRPdZuajA4feRTpcRWi7uBwQsFg-b0Rv391mO1FpYKpDIJa9-L7EI74C7tVsLM9NIKBSXfmNW4NeDI5SDZsKyOPHRjv9utKKpyYjV4J5NuBIwIqUmNXe0j3dhB-WKZNzKYde99JWBCVoe2p2hT_i_77PD5r-3-Y10rEFiMfj0Y7MJOYK_-5EWmjQFKxW7Xr8gm03jqgR1PamJFfc0pNnFc14UnBjR3pV71TOfGSe9WgkNtKvToOZCsmbOonIJDZemzlBdE6efpl3Onimg-5LdO9Q26hDypjV6jQASiQl04wq8F1IvKwZrrxZrYEfRgmSIsy317SCMlYT7AJIQZXHwTo_afiExvg-1q3Qf4_IS5d3lbJYruXL525_l4tseKcKINqOTFF4Gx3Dp0fH1QPU8QX_uTHqBmrwOQsQPEueEpvAwlTGmVIrsCsHJTw/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org%2Fconference%2Fscienceandscientist%2F2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1aT48GuIUz7ApIF7G_SEC_Px0pbAQwWJIKyVe3W0J70cCU-3Lb7Ud9I-xoaMdVVFUWNXcvklieXCsSeVeWk2CBKTrkMnXpVlWSOyrB7TH15OxHN4Y_H72-erYfPDnlp8gZJgIhVKkUqUEdbvtTM3neZNdFoM4XFiYJ_xqHgk-h6ZarXOFFzhs8lU-UBHPpst0jDg8RCqk_vJgNrIlobnajNCbokYeGxbC5MZJYQdjZHOoQsFSMhHaUWIIo5FvbC30G6TTA3HA-mrc5TfEIDCAlYSdzL6dv3GWpe7rLsm2rPFGj1rIX5uC7Cr-q3aeLcKhBKeCPie1G98VbOWZP0PV2Hbue4nbGRbJDpQ4W8TL2LXVgvKvCrphGmYPGi3EG7Fjc1q1i55eiRE3SRyIHCAg7BworNdH_C13F9_mHKhimzLHCFsP_NvjxFUDv7hD-m9bnEJzLKdzqkPvGOBxUToN2A/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fdonate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)


Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1f0uKMOEp5VBe2KJid7LfaDtbydQ6VXeY8mJNnDUAw4bpI-5GVhyNwon60An2GVJn0IPbEnXypWPJSwZQXLhCxq_gtX9pwmMuHLmmndTae3HVq_znCVhZdpXzm3Hh4it6Ym5hW9qQUb5AmdRXpG5qUddM73q7fh1txlX1fD-2t_mstuAvM5eZBK6cVs41miu6Da1p98_U2DH6ZxPE-87X2bGMvtSPLhVADnMWDD0Owgv-GENO3KoeiezQp6QWZ1VryzygpUZ6gbfl5FutYixdbL1yGeeU4W-m9lMGPb-hKLBcvquKMDLhv_qSG19XNM0GkjoAH5pLUxyOkJV61qLfSQCTapHVswVzM8P5CMr0qZ7oPGsgxJ3ZL6sMtpR3EcfbpnhcBMr6R3pu6K5MPQZWH8hSh9_ytOwM0U3HyItwsFTszw8Tf8k2rS4qp3EPvIjd-kWbJ4V9mVdkj4Q_BFBMNA/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fharmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1K3fbDe8DWpRgA4f30VwAt5fqAr7KrgkIAiBAzVeOM76WgHHSfFCJ7eOBxdAHKNyi8RroEPXf7lbvfjwXPFkXVfOkOVSzPolo8c1g6845bsBeN0rk1sDnGsK1dJMX7PvAKIyrlAo3_nFKDyZiRr0mqCWu-NEiRPeDKQ6cXLYF9DbHqNHfedl0dCmV8MsRzadcueQZ9YL-Ou5Coukufc_dseoTta9PPuzNGwYigmPp72JQh9RujVhLJX6cCyEwoIZS0HdEtWjszvMRJAlDjzoX78F8kkgs3eN-Hs1N_2n7aejf4OvUyVnb2b39CLRat4vItY5LJ9Nu9umdZu1Z3Q-nDS1eZsAxO0vtlm_lgaIZgW2cFYVX0TP6slnYDPN1HZAx5tjBPBJGPIIzXbQ9UzHl8eQWsRaERhXWRxZuIZkxj6my4d84JfdHGDKQioTfeql5XG2kt5afOG58EoUtDg8_wA/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2FDarwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1eYkedanJX1a41ATJoHygv1IfotyoWqPdBuxsLvlYqJTpDkJJLjwSwFSj5w8Vb9mNE7a3HlHf5MxeNfjwpfOgbTi5-y5IKT4zEv6p6FW1mb0UgxqWnoMHO20UIUbakgFLaqHgC0bRiF3jBAtUeOtH1p_1PhR_kbB04xhPrw2JXVRiRECF7SvosSD1eI-Z9lFqraVW-JE-83D8YUrwdOFN_Ra63dzKLzN6vczItC19UwOKD0ekCWYmkaA5B7HYh9LFEe2GqODyeYCF1qmPArOzY7iWyThZv3RZyfUZLwH1gkv2TnKaCh6kMqmcmQ-yYqduwMzzHyxvt-hOYHHYTCHwIr6nr9utxAHCwk41ddgJR5fVbRsJrBij7FgLxeQkZv8Tz78RudeYNV0p4-OgH3qpzP17-oCu65FzLMsyAB_QRC1ZNimsoQQshgkWwJqQZNbVetznBM0omccOhPJ88oj2DQ/http%3A%2F%2Fbviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1eGjaCDyeF233zAWLrSutnerprHF9o_D7N1xXulWUPSxR45Jcqwl1y4pEJsWViQskQS1IHbup5SLQ67eijSODQDCS-rUTN99EmGyksjlre2JCaSPukykW0WLSIJj32k1zBAIJGSZVwG8YxlYOpRhyZNB2vQyI4R6aihzc-gQCed7fappLkfyO-FDVeepKH7C7l0tLhR9-XTabohd8bwB25DtDAAplWtRnRG6fGtAvt0plUO0p9OfglwaTsLA2vMVv0C93hk5jskyiDRNlvUFBMdcduTuux58bl1eghTWausjknG6Tnv2neiwPw5qn2eOYR4aYHF2JfMTsaYJuIXoqcLSMZte0JYQ0gDZZtGWsBgGoQeG17j2QpECiovXm44dYFtCGlpKfKD9q9DkC-ySrXfGqpwWz7gO51rBWAhMYuNPLKmWhUIq-yIoGt2mK6vkjE37xjmIW5HLzFsM8lOR4cw/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1jiidv53kqBdAOKn2Lybj2TaBy6-mQ2Sq9wqv8SQFLRz2yt9VGB8RxzjVZpsfL4bC1dExZJxs__5xRwQZ_N1JvpwDJzxtj5gN_wxWlo2K7c0UtIfKWcMA24XmBnxjpEL0xxjEt7L26HtmTTMwchTJH_bRvyeH-TBVews5TJk1Hu1VGmYoKC7gM7Y8dl5XcZKhLBfM0k0gW0IPAnE7kzCUd84fUeshdojpTHUTieBYxicH4WIImSqrtc42PJOSXnWov8DCFGzeqNnImuUl0SoWXx3iZhDWiwMsESUfGzVCPXr9Zl8BYCmGb5YpLew-MtsFO17WU-MrQGGCmB7ptR0S912qk4wZvwQWkkxtWXLJdUDRDEntJNVMqXn0h2CP1YoWlP9yVzt_1LosSWG40fKR4n_rCZSbv3ryy1LRAdCdspbN_F96ZjxRAGKualtoeErxIehA1vrLYY2DDtXuzajqVA/http%3A%2F%2Fmahaprabhu.net%2Fsatsanga

Contact Us: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1DXX_4hGZoFkB_6lbtDtItKeD7k72dM00UbUc2yK07iTriSB5JGVNqtmSevltt7w7RuBGUJFo5It546CTDGDqmCfD24RRjgResnryR6ijHnI6YzR0IowXNyt5kbO5bmJwNroTMBmgD39JfF7cGNfcde8b5fHirjGD90-NouiQhk4LblBUC1hCUxFSpcXWiSAJdI0CgN6zheOCnF3XcM4qLyZ83CXD0cOdvLoDKlTocqec06zCBUgoATUwgjSWvPlVbjreXFP_IXz1ayvn4n9ZlpM4EaKwMU4xRVVHRDxE5JWOPUv7EMCJjvKrB82XdXcW73QY3fm9-aO_JZveu3ssRHnEo9sCi12S4v3SB1iYbuOruky3e642w8ATdl7b22vn0gMK_ZCqUTfdZEKiziKyuUZwsKKlyK_ishY2XE87PTVN9pAbbebgLJrwV3rydfr0nWlzuTIiGYyneFf1lD5UBA/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org%2Fcontact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20180405133333.GA20331%40black.transpect.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1CXfXjHrgCrPF3sEPLBL8ec0takSzRPdZuajA4feRTpcRWi7uBwQsFg-b0Rv391mO1FpYKpDIJa9-L7EI74C7tVsLM9NIKBSXfmNW4NeDI5SDZsKyOPHRjv9utKKpyYjV4J5NuBIwIqUmNXe0j3dhB-WKZNzKYde99JWBCVoe2p2hT_i_77PD5r-3-Y10rEFiMfj0Y7MJOYK_-5EWmjQFKxW7Xr8gm03jqgR1PamJFfc0pNnFc14UnBjR3pV71TOfGSe9WgkNtKvToOZCsmbOonIJDZemzlBdE6efpl3Onimg-5LdO9Q26hDypjV6jQASiQl04wq8F1IvKwZrrxZrYEfRgmSIsy317SCMlYT7AJIQZXHwTo_afiExvg-1q3Qf4_IS5d3lbJYruXL525_l4tseKcKINqOTFF4Gx3Dp0fH1QPU8QX_uTHqBmrwOQsQPEueEpvAwlTGmVIrsCsHJTw/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org%2Fconference%2Fscienceandscientist%2F2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1aT48GuIUz7ApIF7G_SEC_Px0pbAQwWJIKyVe3W0J70cCU-3Lb7Ud9I-xoaMdVVFUWNXcvklieXCsSeVeWk2CBKTrkMnXpVlWSOyrB7TH15OxHN4Y_H72-erYfPDnlp8gZJgIhVKkUqUEdbvtTM3neZNdFoM4XFiYJ_xqHgk-h6ZarXOFFzhs8lU-UBHPpst0jDg8RCqk_vJgNrIlobnajNCbokYeGxbC5MZJYQdjZHOoQsFSMhHaUWIIo5FvbC30G6TTA3HA-mrc5TfEIDCAlYSdzL6dv3GWpe7rLsm2rPFGj1rIX5uC7Cr-q3aeLcKhBKeCPie1G98VbOWZP0PV2Hbue4nbGRbJDpQ4W8TL2LXVgvKvCrphGmYPGi3EG7Fjc1q1i55eiRE3SRyIHCAg7BworNdH_C13F9_mHKhimzLHCFsP_NvjxFUDv7hD-m9bnEJzLKdzqkPvGOBxUToN2A/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fdonate

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)



Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1f0uKMOEp5VBe2KJid7LfaDtbydQ6VXeY8mJNnDUAw4bpI-5GVhyNwon60An2GVJn0IPbEnXypWPJSwZQXLhCxq_gtX9pwmMuHLmmndTae3HVq_znCVhZdpXzm3Hh4it6Ym5hW9qQUb5AmdRXpG5qUddM73q7fh1txlX1fD-2t_mstuAvM5eZBK6cVs41miu6Da1p98_U2DH6ZxPE-87X2bGMvtSPLhVADnMWDD0Owgv-GENO3KoeiezQp6QWZ1VryzygpUZ6gbfl5FutYixdbL1yGeeU4W-m9lMGPb-hKLBcvquKMDLhv_qSG19XNM0GkjoAH5pLUxyOkJV61qLfSQCTapHVswVzM8P5CMr0qZ7oPGsgxJ3ZL6sMtpR3EcfbpnhcBMr6R3pu6K5MPQZWH8hSh9_ytOwM0U3HyItwsFTszw8Tf8k2rS4qp3EPvIjd-kWbJ4V9mVdkj4Q_BFBMNA/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fharmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1K3fbDe8DWpRgA4f30VwAt5fqAr7KrgkIAiBAzVeOM76WgHHSfFCJ7eOBxdAHKNyi8RroEPXf7lbvfjwXPFkXVfOkOVSzPolo8c1g6845bsBeN0rk1sDnGsK1dJMX7PvAKIyrlAo3_nFKDyZiRr0mqCWu-NEiRPeDKQ6cXLYF9DbHqNHfedl0dCmV8MsRzadcueQZ9YL-Ou5Coukufc_dseoTta9PPuzNGwYigmPp72JQh9RujVhLJX6cCyEwoIZS0HdEtWjszvMRJAlDjzoX78F8kkgs3eN-Hs1N_2n7aejf4OvUyVnb2b39CLRat4vItY5LJ9Nu9umdZu1Z3Q-nDS1eZsAxO0vtlm_lgaIZgW2cFYVX0TP6slnYDPN1HZAx5tjBPBJGPIIzXbQ9UzHl8eQWsRaERhXWRxZuIZkxj6my4d84JfdHGDKQioTfeql5XG2kt5afOG58EoUtDg8_wA/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2FDarwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1eYkedanJX1a41ATJoHygv1IfotyoWqPdBuxsLvlYqJTpDkJJLjwSwFSj5w8Vb9mNE7a3HlHf5MxeNfjwpfOgbTi5-y5IKT4zEv6p6FW1mb0UgxqWnoMHO20UIUbakgFLaqHgC0bRiF3jBAtUeOtH1p_1PhR_kbB04xhPrw2JXVRiRECF7SvosSD1eI-Z9lFqraVW-JE-83D8YUrwdOFN_Ra63dzKLzN6vczItC19UwOKD0ekCWYmkaA5B7HYh9LFEe2GqODyeYCF1qmPArOzY7iWyThZv3RZyfUZLwH1gkv2TnKaCh6kMqmcmQ-yYqduwMzzHyxvt-hOYHHYTCHwIr6nr9utxAHCwk41ddgJR5fVbRsJrBij7FgLxeQkZv8Tz78RudeYNV0p4-OgH3qpzP17-oCu65FzLMsyAB_QRC1ZNimsoQQshgkWwJqQZNbVetznBM0omccOhPJ88oj2DQ/http%3A%2F%2Fbviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1eGjaCDyeF233zAWLrSutnerprHF9o_D7N1xXulWUPSxR45Jcqwl1y4pEJsWViQskQS1IHbup5SLQ67eijSODQDCS-rUTN99EmGyksjlre2JCaSPukykW0WLSIJj32k1zBAIJGSZVwG8YxlYOpRhyZNB2vQyI4R6aihzc-gQCed7fappLkfyO-FDVeepKH7C7l0tLhR9-XTabohd8bwB25DtDAAplWtRnRG6fGtAvt0plUO0p9OfglwaTsLA2vMVv0C93hk5jskyiDRNlvUFBMdcduTuux58bl1eghTWausjknG6Tnv2neiwPw5qn2eOYR4aYHF2JfMTsaYJuIXoqcLSMZte0JYQ0gDZZtGWsBgGoQeG17j2QpECiovXm44dYFtCGlpKfKD9q9DkC-ySrXfGqpwWz7gO51rBWAhMYuNPLKmWhUIq-yIoGt2mK6vkjE37xjmIW5HLzFsM8lOR4cw/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1jiidv53kqBdAOKn2Lybj2TaBy6-mQ2Sq9wqv8SQFLRz2yt9VGB8RxzjVZpsfL4bC1dExZJxs__5xRwQZ_N1JvpwDJzxtj5gN_wxWlo2K7c0UtIfKWcMA24XmBnxjpEL0xxjEt7L26HtmTTMwchTJH_bRvyeH-TBVews5TJk1Hu1VGmYoKC7gM7Y8dl5XcZKhLBfM0k0gW0IPAnE7kzCUd84fUeshdojpTHUTieBYxicH4WIImSqrtc42PJOSXnWov8DCFGzeqNnImuUl0SoWXx3iZhDWiwMsESUfGzVCPXr9Zl8BYCmGb5YpLew-MtsFO17WU-MrQGGCmB7ptR0S912qk4wZvwQWkkxtWXLJdUDRDEntJNVMqXn0h2CP1YoWlP9yVzt_1LosSWG40fKR4n_rCZSbv3ryy1LRAdCdspbN_F96ZjxRAGKualtoeErxIehA1vrLYY2DDtXuzajqVA/http%3A%2F%2Fmahaprabhu.net%2Fsatsanga

Contact Us: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1DXX_4hGZoFkB_6lbtDtItKeD7k72dM00UbUc2yK07iTriSB5JGVNqtmSevltt7w7RuBGUJFo5It546CTDGDqmCfD24RRjgResnryR6ijHnI6YzR0IowXNyt5kbO5bmJwNroTMBmgD39JfF7cGNfcde8b5fHirjGD90-NouiQhk4LblBUC1hCUxFSpcXWiSAJdI0CgN6zheOCnF3XcM4qLyZ83CXD0cOdvLoDKlTocqec06zCBUgoATUwgjSWvPlVbjreXFP_IXz1ayvn4n9ZlpM4EaKwMU4xRVVHRDxE5JWOPUv7EMCJjvKrB82XdXcW73QY3fm9-aO_JZveu3ssRHnEo9sCi12S4v3SB1iYbuOruky3e642w8ATdl7b22vn0gMK_ZCqUTfdZEKiziKyuUZwsKKlyK_ishY2XE87PTVN9pAbbebgLJrwV3rydfr0nWlzuTIiGYyneFf1lD5UBA/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org%2Fcontact

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Apr 8, 2018, 6:15:48 PM4/8/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi   Bruno,

I tried to be as explicit about the relational complexity view as I can in the previous post. Now I copy an excerpt from your latest post to examine precisely where we differ. This excerpt id intriguing to me because in essence you are arguing that computation has all the u infinities that I ascribe to my hypothetical inverse domain, so perhaps there is nothing lost in computationalism.  I consider that at least an interesting proposition. I would t know where to begin comparing what one infinity might contain vs another, except to reason from local to nonlocal in the following way. Every mechanistic description implies a contextual information map between a natural referent and a symbol for it. This, we at least have an infinite contextualization required to define discrete mechanisms. Indeed one can show that mechanisms are incomplete, but how we model that incompleteness will decide if it is theoretically consistent with infinite contextualization of the information relation which we already must accept. If it is treated as uncertainty or error in the proximal system then it is not consistent with the provable proposition that contextual information is transcendent. Thus, if I were to accept your argument for computationalism, which I would like to because I also am limited to computers, it would have to be with the qualification that we numerically represent the infinite holarchy of contextual information relations between apparent 'stuff' in structural terms, and apparent memory of 'stuff' in functional terms.

On that reasoning I would say that we have no assurance that the incompleteness of machines will 'add up' the same way as the contextualization of nature information relations. How do the uncertainties add up to yield meaningful semantics about the missing qualia? That to me is the problem with computationalism that is not structured on a modeling relation. Indeed my own proposed informatics approach would be computational, so I must say that I think it is possible. The question boils down to what os being modeled, the mechanism or the relation, and what is being discarded, the uncertainty or the specificity. In both cases I think it must be the latter to preserve images of natural unity.

John

On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 9, 2018, 5:14:23 AM4/9/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, 

Where you say, """At some point, when we arithmetize arithmetic, we use number for the symbol “0”, “+” “*”, “s”, “(“ and “)". For exemple we can use odd numbers for each symbol “0” is 3, “s” is 5, “(“ is 7, “)” is 9, etc. We can use the even numbers for the infinitely many variables x, y, z, x1, y1, z1 """,   all I see you doing is making up another instance of nested structured~duality.   If you take it another step, you get down to arrays of strings of  one's and zeroes or to patterns of  higher and lower voltages, etc.  And someplace you need to have a look-up table of all your codings. 

Okay. So your have nested structural codings running within nested structural codings that others set up and created.  

Then what? What is the magic?   Why is it that you seem to say this can ONLY work in arithmetic even though you experience it and observe it working in atomic and molecular arrangements? 

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.


Hi Ralph,


Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this (even without mechanism). 

Bruno




R

Ralph,



   Paul 



--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 9, 2018, 5:14:23 AM4/9/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 8 Apr 2018, at 21:42, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

Bruno,
I suppose one can begin with any assumption, but the results will not be the same.

Yes, and different assumption can be consistent yet independent, or consistent and contradictory than taken together, etc.

For example, I can explain that Indexical Mechanism (I can survive a brain digital transplant made at some description level) is incompatible with Materialism (Some real matter exist or matter needs to be assumed and can’t be derived from something else).

But then, once we postulate mechanism any first order specification of a Turing universal machinery (like arithmetic, combinators) can be assumed. They all lead to the same physics, psychology, biology, theology ...




This  makes your assumption clear, and it is the root of what I could not comprehend about your approach. 

There is no point in referencing Rosen in this case (our prior discussion). He was certainly a 'qualified realist' meaning that he took matter and energy to be real, but not fundamental. On that you might agree,

Indeed.



but not on what might be considered fundamental. For Rosen, and myself, we must consider a complex unity, that is not directly knowable, to be fundamental.

That is what I recover in the “inner god”. Given by “[]p & p”.





Otherwise there is no escape from the problem of conflating existence with description.


The beauty is that “[]p & p” has no description, and it is what the machine knows the better, but it cannot describe it, nor conflate it with anything 3p describable.




If a complex unity is taken as the foundation, then what we can know are dual aspects of that unity.

Yes. I take the arithmetical truth as complex unity (Brahman) and we will be able to know are octal aspect of that unity. Note that with digital mechanism we can understand that we cannot define “arithmetical truth”, and indeed, that is intuitively palpable if you try.





Description becomes dual and abstract in the sense that it is 'taken away' or 'out of' that real unity. So Rosen pointed out that there is nothing more abstract than a numerical measurement because it is a severe reduction of the complex reality. It also follows that such analysis -- taking  nature apart into abstractions, like numbers -- is irreversible. Synthesis of those abstractions will not return the original ontology.

OK. But of course I *assume Mechanism” so here we differ. I recover the neoplatonist conversion and emanation, so I have fill reversibility. God can awaken and then fall sleepy again!




So, it is fine to stay in the world of numbers and to build descriptions accordingly, but it is a reductive approach that loses something fundamental.

Rosen did not understood completely Mechanism, and indeed, he is the reductionist refusing to attribute a soul to numbers and machine. 
You know that the real human question of tomorrow will be “are you OK that your daughter marry a man having a digital brain prothesis, and if you say “no”, she will consider you as a sort of racist …, and indeed, here, you are the one who reduce a number-person to a number-number. 




The dual aspects of any description; structure-function, mind-body, subject-object, local-nonlocal, wave-particle, discrete-continuous, behavior-origin -- all necessary complementarities in any descriptive approach known so far, contain an implicit relation between complements. My and Rosen's fundamental reality assumption is that relation itself. Only one of the complements leads to a discrete world that can correspond with numbers.


The number realities that the number can see from “inside arithmetic” are not discrete, not even bounded by high cardinal, nor even bounded by the whole of math, if that could exist. I am aware that this is counter-intuitive, but not less than the idea that anything 3p can borrow the unnameable "cosmic consciousness”.





The other complement is not discrete in space and time, so if numbers are used to describe it one cannot use those dimensions. It is a domain of overlapping potentialities or as some say qualia.

Glad to hear this. Keep in mind that if “I can survive with a digital transplant” about nothing that the numbers can know can be described by discrete entities.




It is a modeling domain where discrete states decided by events imply continuous functions. It inverts the process of abstracting discrete states from a system. The inversion is context dependent, so there is  ever complete reversibility. Hence change, hence evolution, hence expansion.

Yes, for the physical. But the "mother expansion” is just the sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ...



I don't know what qualia are intrinsically except they are the natural memory of events inverted into functions that could produce similar events (recall or materialization). They are the felt experience of an event taken out of locality and perhaps placed in a relativistic locality (microtubules in living beings, the surface of black holes in nature, ?). 

Keep in mind that I do not assume the physical reality. All there *is* is 0, 1, 2, 3, … and their relations emerging from + and *, like prime numbers, universal numbers, dream by a universal numbers, etc.




Can that nonlocal domain be a numerical phase-space? It is inverse to discrete local existence where numbers can have meaning with regard to events in spacetime. Logically it should be a continuous domain. This is where we use numerical approximation to continuity or infinities. We may still use numbers to describe phase, but then granularity/precision does not correspond to any fundamental difference in identity, only error in description. We must assume continuous functions in nonlocal reality.

We can derive them from the psychology of numbers, or better their theology.



Now, if you ask me to prove that the nonlocal domain is continuous and not discrete I would have trouble, because we can only observe discrete results of it.

The numbers can already prove the continuous non-locality, when they assume to be number (as the numbers cannot prove that they are numbers!).



A difference has to be a noticeable difference. And a Planck limit seems to apply to realizations.  But I believe it is the case that too implies a continuous nonlocal domain, because while any difference in the event world must be a discrete difference, the possible values given such discrete pairing are nevertheless continuous. In other words [I  need to get confirmation on this] uncertainty is a definite bracket around continuous possibilities.

Absolutely. I mean quite plausibly!



If that is the case, nature is not per-discretized or prescribed

Yes, you really need to understand the first person indeterminacy. Numbers are directly confronted to a continuum, when they look around, and they can derive this from being number +mechanism, even when not looking around.




until you get to discrete realization possibilities that fit into a pre-defined world. The world thus 'selects' from non-descrete possibilities, but may only be able to accept certain values that are allowed by the worldly system doing the selecting. Thus we get discrete energy, spin, etc states that correspond logically with history.

Hmm… It is not the world which do the selection, but consciousness,when undergoing the differentiation among all histories.




So, I would be highly skeptical of a philosophy bases on a presumed fundamental reality of numbers.

You should not worry. The discrete number reality is only the picture from nowhere. From inside, the numbers + mechanism guaranties the type of non local continuum that you seem to appreciate here.




Like Ptolemy who thought circles are perfect so he based his cosmology on circles, because of the power of numerical methods we might think that numbers are perfect and thus base our cosmology on them. But it would be another Ptolemeic system, grounded in the description.  In all such mistaken conflations between descriptive methods and the realism of inquiry about presumed nature, as Ive mentioned before, it is like going to a fine restaurant and eating the menu  instead of the meal. Neither the numerical description nor the stuff are real by themselves. The context-content relation is our closest notion of reality today, and that approaches the idea of general consciousness.

But an artificial brain is not a model or a theory or a description of your 1p. It is a real things which can support and borrow you 1p-self, which is really in Arithmetical Heaven all the times. You need some divine amnesia to become active in a relative reality. 





two ontological (understand that this term also means unknowable)

It is not knowable for sure, but it is “livable” if I can say, and “knowable” modulo some faith (in the mechanist theological reincarnation).

Bruno 





(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org

 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Robert Searle

unread,
Apr 9, 2018, 5:14:23 AM4/9/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Some Examples of "Stuff?"


There is a large collection of images or "Stuff" which may be largely "real" or not. But that can only be determined by new thinking. Using QM as an aid to all this is totally INCOMPLETE without phenomenology. To seriously study conciousness, and the possibility of  "psychic" and "spiritual" "worlds" it is necessary to develop elaborate unconventional research to see to what extent they are accurately describable, and also, how independently corroborative they may be. Unfortunately, this requires imagination, and vision which seems to be lacking here....though others will disagree here. See    https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science


Are the following the "Stuff" of nonsense?




Depictions of "Auras". http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=aura&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=771&wrapid=tlif135150329084810&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=mk2OUOjmOYvM0AWYq4DoAQ


Depictions of "Subtle Body." http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&cp=11&gs_id=w&xhr=t&q=subtle+body&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=771&wrapid=tljp1351503699870020&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=NU-OUKmBC_Pa0QWQyoGQCw


Depictions of "Chakras." https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chakras&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MV9BU_blPMaxhAeBhoHYAg&ved=0CAUQ_AU


Kundalini Energy https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kundalini%20energy&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.53537100,d.d2k,pv.xjs.s.en_US.MLJSUkuQGS4.O&biw=1280&bih=771&dpr=1&wrapid=tlif138096534659711&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=DtxPUrCFLJD70gXT2IHoCw


Depictions of "Planes of Existence." https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=planes+of+existence+buddhism&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_A9EU-CdMKjG7AaD7IDgAg&ved=0CAUQ_AU


"Inner Planes" https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inner+planes&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=oIhOUsi7GsmZhQejn4CYCA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=910&dpr=1


Depictions of Psychedelic-like "Worlds." Sometimes reports from the "other world" suggest that the colours of various beings, and objects can be more "stunning," and "more real" than anything known in the physical universe. In other words, "psychedelic-like". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=psychedelic+art&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&tbm=isch&oq=psychedelic+art&gs_l=img.12...0.0.0.2844.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1ac..34.img..0.0.0.gbUOqAcVfMI


Buddhist Thangka Art Such art is meant to represent "higher states," or "worlds" of conciousness. Ofcourse, they can possibly link with "other worlds". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tangpa+buddhist+tibetan&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pxxpUqypGfGY1AWxwICwDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=933#q=buddhist%20thangpa%20art&tbm=isch


Kirlian Photography. By using electricity, and using a special Kirlian "camera" (or something similiar) it is possible to artifically create what appear to be "auras", and other kinds of colourful "psychic energies". However, these are probably not "real" energies as seen by certain types of psychics. Yet, the examples of Kirlian Photography presented here are arguably a good "representation" of what they could look like without artist representations of them seen on other links of this section on Multi-Dimensional Science https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&noj=1&biw=1280&bih=770&q=kirlian%20photography&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=iPWQUc7aGsqu0QW4u4HoAw


Surrealism The "lower" psychic "realms" are said to be similar in nature to Surrealism in art https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=surrealism&safe=strict&biw=1600&bih=752&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Z_2cVYDYK_Hd7QbI8IK4Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ


What Dreams May Come The images are from a film, and they often depict scenery in the "afterlife" as being "extra colourful" like psychedelic experiences. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+dreams+may+come&safe=strict&biw=1600&bih=752&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=APicVYPwKYG9UvKPgbAL&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg#imgrc=_


Patterns Inner experiences may involve in part seeing a variety of patterns that maybe describable, semi-describable, or indeed, indescribable "altogether". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=patterns&biw=1280&bih=930&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=MbefVdK6OIWjU4rcjrgL&ved=0CC0Q7Ak


Geometry "Other Worlds" may have a variety of geometrical shapes in "certain places". Again, they maybe describable to some extent, or indeed, "indescrible". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=geometry&hl=en-GB&biw=1280&bih=930&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zbifVff5IcvkUty1g7AL&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ


Esoteric Geometry https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=esoteric+geometry&safe=strict&biw=1680&bih=897&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIypia1OeRxwIVro_bCh2BDQe6


Occult Geometry https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=occult+geometry&safe=strict&hl=en-GB&biw=1680&bih=897&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIsKast-iRxwIVxbIeCh01Ug-F


Sacred Geometry https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sacred+geometry&safe=strict&biw=1280&bih=626&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI4eGXvf6MyAIVQTgUCh2WxgoQ


Leadbeater, Man Visible, and Invisible https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=leadbeater+man++visible+and+invisible&biw=1280&bih=930&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIkM3et9z2xwIVyZceCh1teguw


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/EEDFB7B9-BB5A-4AC9-AAF7-AB1F56ACEB6C%40colorado.edu.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 9, 2018, 10:55:15 AM4/9/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi John,


On 8 Apr 2018, at 22:14, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

Hi   Bruno,

I tried to be as explicit about the relational complexity view as I can in the previous post. Now I copy an excerpt from your latest post to examine precisely where we differ. This excerpt id intriguing to me because in essence you are arguing that computation has all the u infinities that I ascribe to my hypothetical inverse domain, so perhaps there is nothing lost in computationalism.  I consider that at least an interesting proposition.


OK. We might differ only in the methodology. I assume Mechanism (and thus computers, doctors, and things like that, including the final amount of arithmetic to define “digital machine”), and then I prove, or argue at least, that eventually the TE cannot assume more than elementary arithmetic (not even the induction axioms, still less infinity). But I recover them in the machine’s mind, from inside arithmetic. 




I would t know where to begin comparing what one infinity might contain vs another, except to reason from local to nonlocal in the following way. Every mechanistic description implies a contextual information map between a natural referent and a symbol for it.

OK. But keep in mind that in the TOE, isolated from mechanism, we cannot assume more than x+0 =0, etc.

WE have also to understand well the difference between a computation and a description of a computation, like we need to understand well that a number is not the same as the description of a number. 5 is unique, for example, but it admits infinitely many descriptions.




This, we at least have an infinite contextualization required to define discrete mechanisms.

OK. A (meta) infinite is unavoidable. Mechanism can be said to be finitist, but not ultra-finitist.




Indeed one can show that mechanisms are incomplete, but how we model that incompleteness will decide if it is theoretically consistent with infinite contextualization of the information relation which we already must accept. If it is treated as uncertainty or error in the proximal system then it is not consistent with the provable proposition that contextual information is transcendent. Thus, if I were to accept your argument for computationalism,


I do not provide argument for computationalism, except at the end with the testing, and I count only the evidences. 



which I would like to because I also am limited to computers, it would have to be with the qualification that we numerically represent the infinite holarchy of contextual information relations between apparent 'stuff' in structural terms, and apparent memory of 'stuff' in functional terms.

OK. Seems nice.



On that reasoning I would say that we have no assurance that the incompleteness of machines will 'add up' the same way as the contextualization of nature information relations.

But at this points, we stop assuming Nature. 



How do the uncertainties add up to yield meaningful semantics about the missing qualia?


Very precisely: this is given by what G* proves about the modality []p & <>t & p, MINUS what G proves about it. That gives sort of physical sensations, that we can measure, have no doubt about them, but can’t prove to the others, like feeling some pain or pleasure, for example. 




That to me is the problem with computationalism that is not structured on a modeling relation. Indeed my own proposed informatics approach would be computational, so I must say that I think it is possible. The question boils down to what os being modeled, the mechanism or the relation, and what is being discarded, the uncertainty or the specificity. In both cases I think it must be the latter to preserve images of natural unity.

I am not sure why we would have to discard except perhaps the person identity specificity. It is not easy to translate what you say in the language of a universal machine. Maybe I just don’t know yet, but I can’t say that, as it is a bit to much vague. Maybe you could elaborate a bit here. Or ask me other precision so that you would be helped in that task.

Best,

Bruno




John

On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

After Gödel, mathematicians noted that to secure the finites, all the infinities are not enough.

The universal machine is not really an explanation, despite its simplicity. It is an unknown, and all its relative incarnation are a promise of difficulties and unpredictability.



which are abstractions of natural existence. Limiting it only to numbers is appropriate for mechanisms alone, leaving out contextual causes that characterize complexity and life.


Yes, but keep in mind that this is already the case for the machine. The partial computable is a very tiny part of the arithmetical truth, and the total computable is a non definable subpart which mirror the whole truth but only partially, at least in the relative situation. The computability theory is mainly the description of layer of non-computability, and unsolvability.

Then, I don’t claim truth, but only testability of the hypothesis that we can survive with an artificial digital brain prosthesis, and then I show that quantum mechanics is quite an ally of computationalism.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 13, 2018, 12:16:35 PM4/13/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 9 Apr 2018, at 09:28, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

Where you say, """At some point, when we arithmetize arithmetic, we use number for the symbol “0”, “+” “*”, “s”, “(“ and “)". For exemple we can use odd numbers for each symbol “0” is 3, “s” is 5, “(“ is 7, “)” is 9, etc. We can use the even numbers for the infinitely many variables x, y, z, x1, y1, z1 """,   all I see you doing is making up another instance of nested structured~duality. 

So what?

You could go at any congress, and tell all speakers, “all I see is that you make noise with your mouth”. 

And you seem to not even try to explain what you mean by “nested structured-duality”. As far as I have an idea, I do agree with they are everywhere, but the goal is to understand what they are, where they come from, etc.

And the “NSD” you saw in this context can be used to progress toward the understanding that we need not to assume more than elementary arithmetic, on which every schoolboy agree, and usually their parents to.




 If you take it another step, you get down to arrays of strings of  one's and zeroes or to patterns of  higher and lower voltages, etc.  And someplace you need to have a look-up table of all your codings. 

You missed the point. By the coding above, I was illustrating the principle used to show that the elementary arithmetic *reality* (not to confuse with any theory *of* arithmetic) is enough for that purpose. The true relations in arithmetic encodes all the look-up tables, or programs, and their relations. 




Okay. So your have nested structural codings running within nested structural codings that others set up and created.  

Not quite, that others have discovered in arithmetic, before still others implemented-incarnated them in the physical world. But with mechanism we bet, or we were inspired by Nature. I discovered computer science first in the bacteria Escherichia Coli, and just before becoming a biologiste, I discovered that this extraordinary thing I saw in the bacteria, was accomplished by simple number relations. So I decide to study Mathematics and Logic instead.




Then what? What is the magic? 


The Universal Turing Church Post Kleene Number. Especially the Gödel-Löbian one, which are the universal numbers which knows that they are Universal Numbers (and all the drastic consequences of that).

It does not matter to choose very elementary arithmetic, or any system, for the deep theological conclusions.

They are unknown which invites themselves to the debate, when if you look inward, you can recognise yourself. 

They are pearls which mimics all other pearls, and they define a realm of coherent dreams, some transfinitely long, in some sense.


 Why is it that you seem to say this can ONLY work in arithmetic even though you experience it and observe it working in atomic and molecular arrangements? 


It works in all universal number/machine/programs/combinators/…

If you dislike the numbers, I could use as well the combinators. It is very easy. K is a combinator, S is a combinator, and then you can combine them so that if x is a combinator, and y is a combinator, then (x y) is a combinator, written xy to avoid to much parenthesis. So, you can enumarate the combinators by they length + alphabetical order: K, S, KK, KS, SK, SS, KKK, K(KK), KKS, K(KS), etc. Note that K(KS) abbreviates the combinators.

What are the combinators does not matter, as it should for elementary concepts. Raymond Smullyan seemed to believe they are birds in an magical forests. You might read “How to mock a Mocking Bird” to have the gist of what is a Turing universal <whatever>.

Keep in mind I am a scientist, and the digital mechanist hypothesis, at the least, provides the mathematical, indeed arithmetical theory and theories to get precise enough to be testable.

We agree on the nested structure. Any compact two dimensional universal dovetailing has to be infinitely nested, like the Mandelbrot set:


Bruno





To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 14, 2018, 4:18:51 AM4/14/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

On 14 Apr 2018, at 05:47, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is nothing like any arithmetic reality of universal nature. There is an arithmetic theory built on some assumptions to to define, understand and describe nature and Laws governing the nature. For example, 1 plus 1 --2 is an assumption and not a universal fact of nature since in nature 1 entity say 1 tree, 1 proton or 1 dog is never equal to another  tree/proton/dog. Therefore,  1 tree plus 1 tree is never equal to 2 trees.

It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, which is complex and does not seems at it is, and explained with much more mathematical assumptions, like quantum field, complex numbers, etc.



You may argue that number 1 has nothing to do with the existence  of 1 tree/1 proton /1 dog.

Yes. I cannot sincerely doubt about the number 1. 
I cannot conceive waking up and stopping to believe in the number one.
But I can conceive waking up, and stopping to believe in tree or in protons. 



My point has been that without some discrete objects be it a tree or a proton or a dog AND a conscious mind/consciousness, none of the numbers 1 or 2 can arise or exist at all.

They do not need to arise. They do not need to exist physically. I have no problem seeing them as eternal idea in the mind of the cosmic consciousness, but with the mechanist assumption, there is a sort of mathematical miracle, as we can listen to the numbers and get the point that they are confronted to a cosmic consciousness and a matter illusion problem, very much like us, and without any other assumption that we can derive “it exists x such that x + 4 = 7” from 3 + 4 = 7.

Then we have the quantum mechanics confimation of the most startling consequence of compuationalism, which tends to make me finding plausible that it could be true.

The universal consciousness is a quite important concept, and matter too, but to assume them is like staring from the answer, and cannot convince me of anything. I have to start from what everybody agree. I doubt that you disagree with statement like 3+4=7, or 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 and its first order logical consequence, like it exists x, y and z such that x^2 + y^2 = z^2. Such triplet (x, y z) are the Pythagorean triples, and were discovered more that 5000 years ago, and have been rediscovered iindependently by others. Similarly nobody has ever found a solution to x^3 + y^3 = z^3, and that absence has been completely proved by Fermat. Then it took 300 years to figure out, by a sophisticated reasoning that for any n bigger than 2 x^n + y^n = z^n has no solutions (except the trivial one (0, 0, 0). But even without the solutions, we are all convinced that either the solution exist, or does not exist, whatever x, y, z represents as long as they obey to a very little set of rules on which we all agree, again, independently of any conception we can have on matter, or on consciousness. Then, consciousness and matter can be explained by relations of that kind, and it put might on both physics, and the discourse of the mystic. And all this can be shown to be necessary if we bet that there is no magic operating in the brain.

Bruno





Regards

Vinod Sehgal
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdtDYVywRa_hJkRd90hBb-YKd68x-xB2qoRkVuJ5kZQBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Fifth International Conference
>>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>>  
>>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>>  
>>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>>  
>>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>>  
>>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>>  
>>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>>  
>>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>>  
>>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>>  
>>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c569474a-5afd-4a50-984e-160112098b5c%40googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Fifth International Conference
>>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>>  
>>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>>  
>>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>>  
>>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>>  
>>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>>  
>>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>>  
>>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>>  
>>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>>  
>>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/E9B7E53E-C1F3-4C7B-97A4-BE9DF0DD71A9%40ulb.ac.be.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Fifth International Conference
>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>  
>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>  
>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>  
>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>  
>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>  
>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>  
>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>  
>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>  
>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcxPzN08d%3D3LM_NUQ3qd%2BQUYd4UcUT8xCoA-cUYCOSBOw%40mail.gmail.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Fifth International Conference
>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>  
>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>  
>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>  
>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>  
>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>  
>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>  
>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>  
>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>  
>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5CBDF2C8-96A4-427D-9BB0-190C76E84077%40ulb.ac.be.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Fifth International Conference
>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>> August 18—19, 2017
>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>  
>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>  
>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>  
>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>  
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>  
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>  
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>  
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>  
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>  
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>  
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLfXeNySh5%3Dp-0Ozc1xeWjAtP5Jf-wA55P4EzAk9EtRDPw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Fifth International Conference
>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>> August 18—19, 2017
>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>  
>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>  
>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>  
>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>  
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>  
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>  
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>  
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>  
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>  
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>  
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Apr 14, 2018, 9:49:56 AM4/14/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
The argument for the primacy of  numbers does not hold up philosophically or mathematically.  It is obviously false to claim that 1+1=2 is syntactically true and general. I gave a simple demonstration before. It is true only under the restricted and unnatural assumption that all semantic referents are discrete. One banana plus one banana adds to two bananas. Banaba plus apple ads to two fruit. Banaba plus house = ?  So you get to reducing all  natural referents to "things" to make simple addition true.  The  you claim that nature is only things so your simplification is all that is needed. It is entirely tautological. Even mathematics is more than numbers. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that semantics cannot be removed from mathematics without making it incomplete. That is as solid a fact about reality as we have in any domain. So you have to give up this idea that numbers are primary if you want to make any sense at all. The best shot at something primary with our current knowledge is the relation between logical symbols and  natural manifestations of those symbols - that relation itself can be taken as fundamental, not either side of it alone.

John

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Apr 14, 2018, 9:49:56 AM4/14/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, I think you have to give up this argument for numbers as a disembodied primary reality - it is untenable. We cannot even discuss it without natural realizations such as the physical system carrying this email. When you refer to the symbol '0' or any other, you have written it - that is the only way it can be known and the only way to test its reality. Hence only the relation between the idea and its common measurability - a natural referent - can be taken as primary.

John

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 14, 2018, 9:49:57 AM4/14/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, 

First, even though I am ignorant in it, I agree that mathematics is a neat and powerful language. Moreover, I can imagine that the ~thing or universal expression that you are talking about looks or ~is intensely ~real or ~valid or ~universal and ~obvious, etc., to you.  And, you may be correct or on a helpful track, but we, or many members of your audience, are just too ignorant. Or, as in my case, I've travelled a different path and stumbled upon my own favorite instance of nested structured~duality, that, for a variety of self-less,selfish and ecologically sound reasons I like to repeat and market.  Also, I favor my instance because, to me, the storyline grows sort of by itself, once I pick a particular structure and one or more (a set) of dualities. 

I seem to hear that you feel that occurs within your storyline also. 

As an "outsider" to your storyline, and if you think back to your studies w/ E.coli,  where you took the mathematical route,  I continued on peering into the aerobic and anaerobic microbiological complexities,   there are things that you assert as obvious or foundational, that I read differently. 

For instance,  where you write: """It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, """,   notice that  "It seems to me" is already equally or more ~universal, clearly true also,  or ~valid than 2+2=4.  Yes, if we want to humor you or go along with the mesmerization, the 2+2=4 is agreeable, but even at that, now we need to drill down into what "being agreeable" or "agreed upon"  is and/or means.   

In my storyline, whether I protein-fold out two fingers on each hand and then silently count and repeat the taught vocalization (hoping to say the correct answer), I visualize forming, or actually, re-forming some type of internal representation, say, in some hydrogen-bond stack (that links through protein-folding to influence expressions. Moreover, since, as you request, the inquiry is on agreement between individual humans,  the agreeing individuals sort of have to have similar internal representations and conditionings, common shared language, signaling skills and available energy, etc.. 

So, while you may want to escape the messy complexity of our mostly carbon-water-based nested structural coding, the only way to do it is through denial or dissociation or something similar, maybe like idealization or going all in on arithmetic realism.

But, as soon as you inquire about getting agreement, the can of worms is free all over the lab bench and beyond.  Minimally ~you have invoked or activated nested structure --  riding on the likely rare agreement on mathematic-like relations between our first person and third person (group agreement) perspectives.   Internally, of course,  this so-called mathematics also goes by the name of stoichiometry, and in aerobic creatures links with the messy nested structural coding within aerobic respiration, that, after a fashion provides energy and protein-folding for an expression.

Also, where you suggest  2+2 = 4 is universal,  FWIW, I notice for that specific expression there is only the one instance and what you are talking more about is more like there is very broad agreement, you know, because we have most all learned and conditioned our protein-folding within  the 3-R's, etc.

Where you focus on the broad agreement on numbers and arithmetic,  I have the impression that "everyone" more agrees on the fact that while they breathe they are alive. This seems more universal, to me, since it includes pre-school children and perhaps folks with dyscalculia.   
That leads into the seemingly messy entanglements of what you seem to think is the only alternative: material realism or physicalism, which you stepped away from when you opted to study math rather than microbiology.    However, the messy problem is the one that confronts us so we might just as well consider it.   

Thus we get the informative generalization: reality, the physical and mental realms, and including mathematical expressions, is nested structured~duality.

Think about it. 

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdtDYVywRa_hJkRd90hBb-YKd68x-xB2qoRkVuJ5kZQBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Fifth International Conference
>>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>>  
>>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>>  
>>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>>  
>>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>>  
>>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>>  
>>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>>  
>>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>>  
>>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>>  
>>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c569474a-5afd-4a50-984e-160112098b5c%40googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Fifth International Conference
>>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>>  
>>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>>  
>>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>>  
>>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>>  
>>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>>  
>>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>>  
>>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>>  
>>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>>  
>>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/E9B7E53E-C1F3-4C7B-97A4-BE9DF0DD71A9%40ulb.ac.be.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Fifth International Conference
>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>  
>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>  
>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>  
>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>  
>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>  
>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>  
>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>  
>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>  
>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcxPzN08d%3D3LM_NUQ3qd%2BQUYd4UcUT8xCoA-cUYCOSBOw%40mail.gmail.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Fifth International Conference
>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>  
>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>  
>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>  
>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>  
>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>  
>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>  
>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>  
>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>  
>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5CBDF2C8-96A4-427D-9BB0-190C76E84077%40ulb.ac.be.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Fifth International Conference
>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>> August 18—19, 2017
>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>  
>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>  
>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>  
>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>  
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>  
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>  
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>  
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>  
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>  
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>  
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLfXeNySh5%3Dp-0Ozc1xeWjAtP5Jf-wA55P4EzAk9EtRDPw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Fifth International Conference
>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>> August 18—19, 2017
>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>  
>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>  
>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>  
>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>  
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>  
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>  
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>  
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>  
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>  
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>  
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1AB120AF-1FE5-4E7B-A6ED-E8D1929B84EE%40ulb.ac.be.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>  
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>  
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>  
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>  
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>  
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>  
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>  
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>  
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcONzyApXsMzp04vPJ14XAS6mLyN7-Tqk19i2QkaoH9TA%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>  
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>  
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>  
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>  
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>  
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>  
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>  
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>  
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdtDYVywRa_hJkRd90hBb-YKd68x-xB2qoRkVuJ5kZQBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Fifth International Conference
>>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>>  
>>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>>  
>>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>>  
>>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>>  
>>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>>  
>>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>>  
>>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>>  
>>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>>  
>>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c569474a-5afd-4a50-984e-160112098b5c%40googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Fifth International Conference
>>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>>  
>>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>>  
>>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>>  
>>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>>  
>>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>>  
>>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>>  
>>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>>  
>>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>>  
>>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/E9B7E53E-C1F3-4C7B-97A4-BE9DF0DD71A9%40ulb.ac.be.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Fifth International Conference
>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>  
>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>  
>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>  
>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>  
>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>  
>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>  
>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>  
>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>  
>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcxPzN08d%3D3LM_NUQ3qd%2BQUYd4UcUT8xCoA-cUYCOSBOw%40mail.gmail.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Fifth International Conference
>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>  
>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>  
>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>  
>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>  
>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>  
>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>  
>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>  
>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>  
>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5CBDF2C8-96A4-427D-9BB0-190C76E84077%40ulb.ac.be.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Fifth International Conference
>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>> August 18—19, 2017
>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>  
>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>  
>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>  
>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>  
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>  
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>  
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>  
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>  
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>  
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>  
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLfXeNySh5%3Dp-0Ozc1xeWjAtP5Jf-wA55P4EzAk9EtRDPw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Fifth International Conference
>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>> August 18—19, 2017
>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>  
>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>  
>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>  
>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>  
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>  
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>  
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>  
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>  
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>  
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>  
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1AB120AF-1FE5-4E7B-A6ED-E8D1929B84EE%40ulb.ac.be.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>  
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>  
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>  
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>  
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>  
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>  
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>  
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>  
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcONzyApXsMzp04vPJ14XAS6mLyN7-Tqk19i2QkaoH9TA%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>  
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>  
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>  
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>  
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>  
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>  
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>  
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>  
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Apr 15, 2018, 4:14:05 PM4/15/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
The more basic addition 1+1 =2'can be substituted. It is certainly not universally true by any stretch. It is true within a very restricted formalism that defines it as true. It is a very shoddy understanding of mathematics to claim it is universally true. Without assuming discrete countable referents, which the computationalist argument denies existence to, the equation is incorrect. The result of combining non discrete referents can be 0,1,2,or 3.  What is  the natural result of adding two languages? Typically it is three.

John
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

john.kineman

unread,
Apr 15, 2018, 5:13:42 PM4/15/18
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Bruno, referencing your last comment, it is not vague. Very precise question. In a modeling relation there are information relations between a formal system and its referent (Rosen called it a natural system, but I won't say that since you are discarding nature). Clearly any formal system is about something - it cannot exist alone, although I sense that you try to get that result from your arguments against "stuff". The question is not if there is "something" the symbolic, mathematical, numerical, or formal system is about, the question at hand is if that "stuff" is fundamental as it was taken to be in modern, classical physics. We agree that it is not. You then argue that the numbers are fundamental, which to me is an equal and opposite error. What is this desire to peg one side or the other of an obvious relation as fundamental? So, I'm not asking about this, I'm informing you that it is a relation and that it makes more sense epistemologically to peg the relation as fundamental. Then consciousness is easily associated with the relation - the information coding between objects and subjects, so consciousness is fundamental. QED. If there is a question for you to answer about this, it is why in any stretch of logic you would want to call this a mechanism, which is the one thing it is provably not. If you model the relation and consider that fundamental, it can produce images (models) of  mechanisms and also complex living systems. Mechanism cannot model the important aspect of a complex or living system, which is precisely this information relation; it models a reduced aspect. And then, as I interpret your arguments, you tautologically assume that nature must be nothing more than this reduction, plus unknowability. But if you reify the relation itself, what mechanism must represent as uncertainty and unknowability (or an infinite regress of mechanisms), can be modeled directly - the relation between a defining context and that which it defines, not restricted to mechanism. Indeed, that schema consists of many mechanistic models, but they are contained in contextual models, and the relation between context and mechanism is not itself mechanistic. Thus you preserve true complexity and still get to write mechanistic descriptions. But of course if you do not assume a nature that has more to it than mechanisms, then mechanisms are sufficient for everything you are looking at because you are not looking at everything. We have done this for centuries.  I don't mean to be personally challenging here - all systems of description may have tremendous value so I wouldn't deem to attack the formalism you have created or its presumed value -- it is only the claim that it is the best approach possible or that it somehow achieves some completeness.l

Another point I'll throw in just to make myself a better target, I think the computational approach you describe must result in materialism if its foundation is numbers; it just hasn't been carried out to its logical result yet. That is my impression.



JK: That to me is the problem with computationalism that is not structured on a modeling relation. Indeed my own proposed informatics approach would be computational, so I must say that I think it is possible. The question boils down to what os being modeled, the mechanism or the relation, and what is being discarded, the uncertainty or the specificity. In both cases I think it must be the latter to preserve images of natural unity.

BM: I am not sure why we would have to discard except perhaps the person identity specificity. It is not easy to translate what you say in the language of a universal machine. Maybe I just don’t know yet, but I can’t say that, as it is a bit to much vague. Maybe you could elaborate a bit here. Or ask me other precision so that you would be helped in that task.

Best,

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 16, 2018, 5:19:02 AM4/16/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 14 Apr 2018, at 15:24, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

Bruno, I think you have to give up this argument for numbers as a disembodied primary reality - it is untenable.

This means that you are not aware of the Turing universality of arithmetic. 




We cannot even discuss it without natural realizations such as the physical system carrying this email.

That is right, but that does not prove that those natural realisation are material. It could be like a video-game, given that those video game exist in arithmetic. 



When you refer to the symbol '0' or any other, you have written it - that is the only way it can be known and the only way to test its reality.

Only because you assume some primary matter. But how could primary matter makes a computations “more real” than another? 





Hence only the relation between the idea and its common measurability - a natural referent - can be taken as primary.

But arithmetic does create the relative computations in which the referent make sense, and that explains the physical appearances with enough precision to be tested. I predicted most of quantum mechanics and the “many-worlds” well before I knew anything of it. That makes Mechanism far more plausible than Materialism, given that Mechanism explains how *both. consciousness and matter appear and are related (on which physicalism has always failed).

I think you are just missing the Turing universality of the natural numbers with addition and multiplication. The fact that x + 0 = x is unrelated to the fact that I need matter to communicate this facts to you. When we assume the axioms of arithmetic and logic, we stay neutral on the metaphysical issue, and with mechanism, the material is explained in term of consciousness, itself explained in term of semantical fixed-point relation of number semi-computable transformation.

That is testable, so if some primary matter exists, people can use my technics to provide some genuine evidence for it. But up to now, I did not find any.


You say (other post):

The argument for the primacy of  numbers does not hold up philosophically or mathematically.  It is obviously false to claim that 1+1=2 is syntactically true and general.

1+1=2 is not syntactical. 



I gave a simple demonstration before. It is true only under the restricted and unnatural assumption that all semantic referents are discrete.

It assumes this only for the natural numbers. Not for everything, and indeed, with just the numbers and mechanism, it can be proved that most of the things will not appear as discrete referents. 



One banana plus one banana adds to two bananas. Banaba plus apple ads to two fruit. Banaba plus house = ?  So you get to reducing all  natural referents to "things" to make simple addition true.

That is like saying that group theory is wrong because (N, 0, +) is not a group. 

On the contrary, with mechanism we can explain why *necessarily* the numbers invents the real numbers and the continua when just trying to understand themselves. 



 The  you claim that nature is only things so your simplification is all that is needed.

Not at all. You miss that with mechanism, the numbers are confronted to a material reality (albeit not primary) involving phenomenologically continua and many non Turing emulable (non computable) realities.




It is entirely tautological.

That would contradict the fact that it is testable, and indeed provides perhaps the first explanation of where the quantum comes from.



Even mathematics is more than numbers.

That is correct, but that is again explainable form the numbers. We must distinguish the ontology assumed, and the phenomenology which results from it.


Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that semantics cannot be removed from mathematics without making it incomplete.

OK.



That is as solid a fact about reality as we have in any domain. So you have to give up this idea that numbers are primary if you want to make any sense at all.

You beg the question by assuming that the numbers or the digital machine cannot develop semantic. Phenomenologically arithmetic is unboundedly more complex that the ontology.




The best shot at something primary with our current knowledge is the relation between logical symbols and  natural manifestations of those symbols - that relation itself can be taken as fundamental, not either side of it alone.

That is going in the right direction, but the relations can be deduced from the numbers and their “simple” laws.

Bruno







Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 16, 2018, 5:38:54 AM4/16/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 14 Apr 2018, at 14:19, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

First, even though I am ignorant in it, I agree that mathematics is a neat and powerful language.


I disagree. Mathematics is not a language at all. You might confuse mathematics and mathematical theories, which of course use some language, but it is always English or Natural language, like in all domain. But the mathematical reality is independent of the language used, and of the theories made to study it.





Moreover, I can imagine that the ~thing or universal expression that you are talking about looks or ~is intensely ~real or ~valid or ~universal and ~obvious, etc., to you. 

It is not obvious at all. It asks a lot of work to get some familiarity. It is counter-intuitive.



And, you may be correct or on a helpful track, but we, or many members of your audience, are just too ignorant.

Or perhaps not enough ignorant. People talks often like if they knew something, like if they knew that there is a primary physical reality. But why? How could they know that? ...



Or, as in my case, I've travelled a different path and stumbled upon my own favorite instance of nested structured~duality, that, for a variety of self-less,selfish and ecologically sound reasons I like to repeat and market.  Also, I favor my instance because, to me, the storyline grows sort of by itself, once I pick a particular structure and one or more (a set) of dualities. 

But you fail on the pedagogical issue. 
I am a simple mind. I do science because I appreciate its methodology: staring from clear assumption on which every good willing people agree, and from facts we agree on, and trying to explain the facts from the assumption. But in metaphysics, better to be neutral and not provide the answer at the start.





I seem to hear that you feel that occurs within your storyline also. 

I started from biology and especially molecular genetics, and then, when I realise that elementary arithmetic already emulates the fascinating biological notion of selves, I get the point that mathematics is more fundamental than physics, and that the appearances of the physical was more easy to explain to a universal machine/number than the contrary.




As an "outsider" to your storyline, and if you think back to your studies w/ E.coli,  where you took the mathematical route,  I continued on peering into the aerobic and anaerobic microbiological complexities,   there are things that you assert as obvious or foundational, that I read differently. 

For instance,  where you write: """It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, """,   notice that  "It seems to me" is already equally or more ~universal, clearly true also,  or ~valid than 2+2=4. 

People argues since a long time on even the meaning of terms like “seem” or “me”. Not on 2+2=4 (when they understand what we are talking about, like in primary school).




Yes, if we want to humor you or go along with the mesmerization, the 2+2=4 is agreeable, but even at that, now we need to drill down into what "being agreeable" or "agreed upon"  is and/or means.   

In my storyline, whether I protein-fold out two fingers on each hand and then silently count and repeat the taught vocalization (hoping to say the correct answer), I visualize forming, or actually, re-forming some type of internal representation, say, in some hydrogen-bond stack (that links through protein-folding to influence expressions. Moreover, since, as you request, the inquiry is on agreement between individual humans,  the agreeing individuals sort of have to have similar internal representations and conditionings, common shared language, signaling skills and available energy, etc.. 

Yes, no problem. But biology is not metaphysics. When I studied biology, I was neutral if my life was a material happenings or not. That was the question I wanted to analyse, and eventually, it was clear that if the biological intuition for mechanism is founded, then ultimately the fundamental reality is immaterial. Mechanism leads to an immaterialist monism.




So, while you may want to escape the messy complexity of our mostly carbon-water-based nested structural coding,

I don’t want to escape it. I want to explain it, and based it on more serious facts that observation and extrapolation.




the only way to do it is through denial or dissociation or something similar, maybe like idealization or going all in on arithmetic realism.

You need to see that it is a consequence of mechanism, my working hypothesis. I don’t claim any truth: I just count the evidences for this or that theory. If physics was still classical, or discrete, I would claim that the evidences are against mechanism and for materialism, but physics appears to confirm mechanism.



But, as soon as you inquire about getting agreement, the can of worms is free all over the lab bench and beyond.  Minimally ~you have invoked or activated nested structure --  riding on the likely rare agreement on mathematic-like relations between our first person and third person (group agreement) perspectives.   Internally, of course,  this so-called mathematics also goes by the name of stoichiometry, and in aerobic creatures links with the messy nested structural coding within aerobic respiration, that, after a fashion provides energy and protein-folding for an expression.

Also, where you suggest  2+2 = 4 is universal,  FWIW, I notice for that specific expression there is only the one instance and what you are talking more about is more like there is very broad agreement, you know, because we have most all learned and conditioned our protein-folding within  the 3-R's, etc.


I gave the whole theory: classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

And, eventually nothing else (beyond the invariance of my consciousness for a digital brain transplant).




Where you focus on the broad agreement on numbers and arithmetic,  I have the impression that "everyone" more agrees on the fact that while they breathe they are alive. This seems more universal, to me, since it includes pre-school children and perhaps folks with dyscalculia.   


Breathing is explained from the numbers (and mechanism). Without mechanism, breathing is pure mystery.

Like some others, you confuse the assumption at the meta level of a theory with the theory itself. To explain group theory you need shall and blackboard, but shall and blackboard are not part of the theory of group. On the contrary, we explained how a shark work by using group theory/chemistry.




That leads into the seemingly messy entanglements of what you seem to think is the only alternative: material realism or physicalism, which you stepped away from when you opted to study math rather than microbiology. 

I remains silent on what I think or believe. I just say that there are more evidence for immaterialism than for materialism.



  However, the messy problem is the one that confronts us so we might just as well consider it.   

Thus we get the informative generalization: reality, the physical and mental realms, and including mathematical expressions, is nested structured~duality.

That is a theorem in the mechanist theory, so you should not be unhappy with this. If your nested structure is primitive then you need to explain what they are in a language that everybody can understand, which actually includes the digital machines/numbers.

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Apr 16, 2018, 8:19:47 AM4/16/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> on April 16, 2018 wrote:
> People talks often like if they knew something, like if they knew
> that there is a primary physical reality. But why? How could 
>they know that?
.
[S.P.] You refuse to understand something very important here. The case is that we postulate Noumenal Reality (physical objective world) as existing objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness. What does the word "to postulate" mean here? It means that we construct a special meta-theory (ontology, belief systems, world-view, etc.). A meta-theory, by definition, requires no proofs. It is used as a basement for applied theories which can be constructed later on its basis or within its limits.
.
Therefore, your question "How could they know that?" is absolutely impertinent and incorrect in principle.  
.
Every person possesses his version of Phenomenal Reality which is a set of knowledge and models of Noumenal Reality the given person has due to activity of own consciousness. The so called "mathematical reality" pertains to Phenomenal Reality of the concrete consciousness-possessing mathematician.
.
So, your inability or refusal to make a difference between Noumenal Reality and Phenomenal Reality causes all these inconsistencies of your approach.
.
To the point, the notation "1+1=2" stands for the rule of arithmetic. A rule, by itself, has no provable sense -- it is a postulate. It has sense only when it is applied. For example, we may add 1 dog and 1 cat. Question: how many dogs we receive? Answer: we receive 1 dog. Question: how many animals we receive? Answer: we receive 2 animals. Therefore, the context/task is primary, whereas the rule of arithmetic is secondary -- or subservient of practice. 
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy

From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Books/papers about mechanisms for ESPs ?

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 16, 2018, 12:09:27 PM4/16/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, 

So what? So what?!  That's a good question. Thanks.

My impression on the "So what?", is that before, or say, during the wrangling in a paradigm shift or transition, you know, when some individual scribbles out  the suitably transcended expression,  the individual, or several different individuals, need to forge/form the different, more general expression or model -- different from ~prior ones -- but also helpful in diagnosing the  anomalous one(s).  Me noticing and expressing that reality is nested structured~duality  is an instance of that type of contribution.  Previously we had no name (okay, perhaps just in our western linguistic community, but maybe also in the entire global affair) for the underlying principle.  Now, we do.

So we end up with a handy universal generalization that we get to use as another tool, mostly in analysis and comparisons.

For instance,  where you write (elsewhere) : """It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, """   the "it seems to me" part is a rather gangly, equally large  instance of nested structured~duality  making a idealized and, I think, dissociated or abstracted  reference about  the "2+2 = 4" instance of NSD.   Without the tool, I might fall for the mesmerization and follow the breadcrumbs not noticing it is front-loaded. Yes, yes, 2+2 = 4, but what manners of molecular and energetic transactions are also involved in "agreeing..." and expressing agreement (or inhibiting critical thinking)?

Minimally,  in a re-clarification of  "It seems to me...(and everyone in the audience must surely agree...)",  I believe you would have to reference some large masses of arithmetic for yourself and each of the individuals, and another large collection of arithmetic representing or providing as  "agreements", etc.,  and in that you likely would also need to admit that say, the teachings of arithmetic from one generation of individuals DO get nested into the nested structural coding of subsequent generations of individuals which also emerge from their ecological, biological and genetic, in utero  priors.    That gets messy and cross-links with a lot of ~physical stuff.

And in that approach, which I think your storyline leaves as  "an exercise for the student",  AFTER they buy into the far distant possible success of  some sort of substitution  at some sort level of substitution level,  I think it is rather clear that what you are really proposing is symbolizing  the various features and aspects of reality just in abstract mathematical terms -- more or less like a call-out for arithmetic realism. That effort is probably fine for you  or any one else to do,  but from my perspective, applying the tool of NSD,   I notice that  since you don't acknowledge the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality  explicitly, it runs wild and rampant within your storyline and, in essence, reveals the contradictions that are rather naturally embedded in your slightly off-base storyline.

You jump back and forth from inherited ancient physical to/from metaphysical levels and then, after a long lull,  herein point at alleged "substitution levels" and yet even though you and your storyline apparently are dependent on there being such inherent nested structure, ~you don't formally acknowledge the underlying principle.  Like a fish swimming in water, you don't see the nested structure  or the nested structured~duality  as fundamental. It's too familiar or too general for you to see. Plus, the underlying general principle has already given the xyz-cube/subjective-objective instance  which comes along with the many shiny number objects and computational relationships, in which your digital mechanistic storyline is deeply immersed. 

That is, you make no explicit provision or acknowledgement of the operable underlying general principle  in your tenets and storyline.   That is, you leave the underlying general principle  among  the unknowns even though you are obviously invoking it and depending upon it.   I get that within  the dominant cube/subjective-objective instance your approach seems pretty rational:  if or since the tiny chunks of matter are proving elusive, well, just erase ontology and hypothesize a purely mathematical representation/fabric -- particularly if you can ignore of deny the nesting and recursion and various wave-particle rerpesentations.

An alternative is to go back to the well and switch mathematical foundations.  Pull the five ways to align four rod magnets  along radii of tetrahedron out of the hat and participants instantly gets analog math that yields physical intuition on  variable mass density multiple states, a look and feel model of our  and our enfolding environment's sp^3 hybridized bonding pattern, along with a rather clear *feel* for the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality.   

Then one can look back and observe that the underlying general principle is actually objective -- a repeating pattern. Pick a structure; pick a duality; nest things outward to their limits.   Thus we have cube/subjective-objective; Tao/yin-yang;  Tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion (attraction +- nested spin);  digital substitution at some (nested) substitution level, etc.

Within the prevailing cube/subjective-objective paradigm boundary, perhaps your storyline works out -- humans create human-like substitution products or mutations --- more instances of nested structured~duality.   But why not introduce the underlying general principle and then try to cooperate with it? Why not change scientific paradigms? 


This not to say your mathematical expressions that you contribute and contribute to, are flawed or not helpful. They are just incomplete, not the complete story, and in many ways, not a good broad spectrum approximation to foster the types of intuition (physical, emotional, etc.,).   In addition to the unreasonable effective of abstract mathematics,  there are also other ways to skin a cat, even Schrodinger's cat/dead-live.    

The underlying general principle of nested structured~duality makes that clear.  In addition to doing ditigal substitutions on brains, another option is just to change tenets of our "working" paradigm.   For those who can grasp it, NSD is just a simple, terse  approximation which allows ~seeing reality,  not just as tiny chunks of matter, or as just stacks of numbers, but as something different and perhaps new, as the underlying common denominator.  Considering nested structured~duality leads to ~seeing reality as nested structural coding -- of reality as nested fields within nested fields -- and that prompts for people appreciating, let's say, multidimensional resonance.  Yes, it has digital and analog  and computational-like representations, but it is not just one of those alone. 


 

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 09:28, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

Where you say, """At some point, when we arithmetize arithmetic, we use number for the symbol “0”, “+” “*”, “s”, “(“ and “)". For exemple we can use odd numbers for each symbol “0” is 3, “s” is 5, “(“ is 7, “)” is 9, etc. We can use the even numbers for the infinitely many variables x, y, z, x1, y1, z1 """,   all I see you doing is making up another instance of nested structured~duality. 

So what?

See above. 

You could go at any congress, and tell all speakers, “all I see is that you make noise with your mouth”. 

I could also point to the protein-folding, or the hydrogen bonding.   But also, the idealization or hope that I would or do  have for noise they make would be that it also reflects agreements among them on statesmanship and leadership moving people here and everywhere toward a better union. 

And you seem to not even try to explain what you mean by “nested structured-duality”. As far as I have an idea, I do agree with they are everywhere, but the goal is to understand what they are, where they come from, etc.

Think about resonance.  Think about the principle or tenet you would need to adopt in order to shift to a different scientific paradigm. Think of the underlying principle which supports forming and changing scientific paradigms.  

And the “NSD” you saw in this context can be used to progress toward the understanding that we need not to assume more than elementary arithmetic, on which every schoolboy agree, and usually their parents to.

I sort of agree that we might be collaborating, albeit, perhaps unconsciously, but try to consider what is involved in  "every schoolboy agree, and usually their parents too".   That which is involved in "agreeing" is as, or more fundamental compared with 2+2 equaling 4.  Agreeing, minimally, involves moleccular chunks and energy flows among molecular chunks.

 If you take it another step, you get down to arrays of strings of  one's and zeroes or to patterns of  higher and lower voltages, etc.  And someplace you need to have a look-up table of all your codings. 

You missed the point. By the coding above, I was illustrating the principle used to show that the elementary arithmetic *reality* (not to confuse with any theory *of* arithmetic) is enough for that purpose. The true relations in arithmetic encodes all the look-up tables, or programs, and their relations. 

Okay. I guess I do miss that point because I am pointing out the principle that you are using to illustrate the principle that "arithmetic *reality*"... is enough for your storyline's purpose.  You pick a structure and pick one or more dualities.  And, in your case, you try to extract a commitment for mesmerized agreement, up front.  The difficulty with that, which you may or may not know or agree with is, within your audience, your audience is  at some level already structurally coding representations of the experience and "agreements".


Okay. So your have nested structural codings running within nested structural codings that others set up and created.  

Not quite, that others have discovered in arithmetic, before still others implemented-incarnated them in the physical world. But with mechanism we bet, or we were inspired by Nature. I discovered computer science first in the bacteria Escherichia Coli, and just before becoming a biologiste, I discovered that this extraordinary thing I saw in the bacteria, was accomplished by simple number relations. So I decide to study Mathematics and Logic instead.

My impression is that you ~saw some patterns in E.coli, et. al, and then you saw some patterns in mathematical expressions that were like or similar or reflective and reminiscent of the patterns you observed in biology, and, probably better using your gifts, you switched majors, as they say.    My impression is there is also a large amount of nested structured~duality   hidden and embedded in your (or Descartes') phrase "with mechanism..."

So, in that, you start out observing one instance of NSD (e.coli) and you form another instance of NSD (you memory/associations), and you form other simialr instances of NSD with external and internal representations of mathematics (which are more instances of your own internal NSD).   To you, it looks and feels like the math instance might be a good or the best bet for modeling the underlying nested structured~duality.  

Oops. Wait a minute. You aren't even aware of or acknowledge the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality.  How is your modeling effort going to bear tasty or relevant fruit?  Or when? Or how?


Then what? What is the magic? 

The Universal Turing Church Post Kleene Number. Especially the Gödel-Löbian one, which are the universal numbers which knows that they are Universal Numbers (and all the drastic consequences of that).

It does not matter to choose very elementary arithmetic, or any system, for the deep theological conclusions.

They are unknown which invites themselves to the debate, when if you look inward, you can recognise yourself. 

They are pearls which mimics all other pearls, and they define a realm of coherent dreams, some transfinitely long, in some sense.

Now who is waxing poetic?  Pardon my provincial insensitivity, but numbers do not "know" things, particularly about themselves.  I surmise you are using some type of intellectual  figure of speech and if you started out with one statement and then led to another and another, you might say, "In this way, 'numbers know.....".   But that is somewhat the same as like programming a computer, or back in the above paragraph,  ~you making up a look-up or cross-reference table and then programming that into your program. Your program didn't create the cross-reference table, nor is there reason to think that AI routines would generate cross-reference tables  so as to be able to back-inform you, or worse, inform me, what binary electrical resonances feel like to them.  Or to give their care to our concerns.

Underneath pearls reflecting pearls, and numbers reflecting anthropomorphic theologies and dreams, and the idealization that there is SOME  unified resonance level..... computationalism might show us,  these things all ride  along on the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality.

 Why is it that you seem to say this can ONLY work in arithmetic even though you experience it and observe it working in atomic and molecular arrangements? 


It works in all universal number/machine/programs/combinators/…

If you dislike the numbers, I could use as well the combinators. It is very easy. K is a combinator, S is a combinator, and then you can combine them so that if x is a combinator, and y is a combinator, then (x y) is a combinator, written xy to avoid to much parenthesis. So, you can enumarate the combinators by they length + alphabetical order: K, S, KK, KS, SK, SS, KKK, K(KK), KKS, K(KS), etc. Note that K(KS) abbreviates the combinators.

What are the combinators does not matter, as it should for elementary concepts. Raymond Smullyan seemed to believe they are birds in an magical forests. You might read “How to mock a Mocking Bird” to have the gist of what is a Turing universal <whatever>.

Keep in mind I am a scientist, and the digital mechanist hypothesis, at the least, provides the mathematical, indeed arithmetical theory and theories to get precise enough to be testable.

I vaguely follow that but I observe that your instance in only within the waning scientific model and a positive or negative test result only fiddles, I guess, with refuting Aristotle's approximation and does precious little to inform the students in the global classroom  on the nature of our reality, or provide physical intuition on many of our current scientific understandings in a succinct and immediate way.   Plus, even a positive test result, when ever  that might occur still keeps the same (flawed and failing) gameboard in play.  There is no obvious shift in the scientific paradigm: the headline would be "Abstract math continues to be unreasonably effective". 

Why is that, Bruno? Tell us something we don't already know.   

We agree on the nested structure. Any compact two dimensional universal dovetailing has to be infinitely nested, like the Mandelbrot set:


Bruno


Okay! Agreeing on nested structure, that is excellent start after 4-6 months.   Congratulations!!  Mow onward to general nested structured~duality.

I continue to think about  us both taking two paths to "the answer". (Hint, hint: the answer is change math basis and scientific paradigms.)    

We both start out on the clock at 12 noon and you go clockwise around to your current position at 11:50 where you say you sort of report still needing huge, perhaps unlimited  computational resources and you also require require a (successful) digital brain substitution to test your theory,  like signalling that you are climbing a very, very steep, long  asymptote.

I, on the other hand, ne'er do well that I am, change over to "magnetic tetrahedral" analog math and then go counter-clockwise,  arriving at the answer  located at 11:59:30 in short order.  Okay, yes, I 'cheated' and did the last step first and seemingly start with the correct, or a currently appropriate and sufficiently approximate  enough answer first -- so as the mere change in math basis  illuminates the underlying general principle, but, you know what the Godel-Lobian Numbers also say: any port in a storm and all is fair in successful scientific paradigm mechanics --  comparing the two, my route does actually involve the least action and is terse and expressive enough so it should propagate pretty well.  

Wouldn't you agree?

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.


On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 5 Apr 2018, at 16:33, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Bruno,

Pardon my slang of "stuff".    

Notice that in your storyline, part of it involves you starting out with a list of symbols: 0, +, *,s -- all of which have some structure and all of which are supposed to and do spawn recognition of their  nested structured~duality -- their associated meanings and values, uses and limits, etc. 

Not at all. At some point, when we arithmetize arithmetic, we use number for the symbol “0”, “+” “*”, “s”, “(“ and “)". For exemple we can use odd numbers for each symbol “0” is 3, “s” is 5, “(“ is 7, “)” is 9, etc. We can use the even numbers for the infinitely many variables x, y, z, x1, y1, z1

Then by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which says that all numbers have a *unique* ordered prime decomposition, we can translate in arithmetic a sequence of symbols like "s(0)” by, using the association given above:  (2^5) *( 3^7) * (5^3) *(7^9). Here the exposed 2, 3, 5, 7, are the ordered prime numbers.

As I said, I assume only classical logic (intutionistic would also work, but it is more tedious, and the theology is made artificially weirder) and the axioms:

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Hi Ralph,


On 3 Apr 2018, at 18:40, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno,
Who are you calling no one?

The stuff inside and out is just NSD ... nested structured-duality.

Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this (even without mechanism). 

Bruno




R

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 4:45 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Ralph,


On 2 Apr 2018, at 20:10, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Apr 16, 2018, 1:18:07 PM4/16/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Apr 2018, at 15:24, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu>
> wrote:
>
> We cannot even discuss it without natural realizations such as the physical
> system carrying this email.
>
> That is right, but that does not prove that those natural realisation are
> material. It could be like a video-game, given that those video game exist in
> arithmetic.

Bruno,

On the one hand, you propose a proof that IF a basically functionalist
substitution of parts for organs procedure preserves consciousness THEN
Aristotelian materialistic physics fails. So where most functionalists are
physicalists, you're not. That's a fascinating, and unusual -- perhaps
entirely orginal -- stance.

On the other, you now bring in the "How do we know we're not in a
simulation" discussion that, to be sure, many functionalists are fascinated
by. Yet the video games as-we-know-them exist on physical substrates.
Something has to hold or contain and provide pathways for the numbers, and
constrain their interactions and iterations.

Now, Turing theory holds that the same routines can be instantantiated upon
many different substraits -- thus allowing the sort of substitution of quite
different parts beneath the same functional routines, as you posit. But you
seem to claim that math can _also_ be implemented, instantiated on a void
substrate.

That may have no more problem, logically, than physicalist claims that
matter emerges from breaks in the symmetry of the void. So in that sense it
doesn't tilt the argument against your anti-physicalist claims. Each stance
has the same apparent shortcoming -- explaining the void as a substrate for
a lawful, emergent realm.

Yet, given the shared assumption, why should we presume math takes priority,
is as it were the first to emerge from the void? It may be that whatever
first emerges, to be lawful, has to include mathmaticalization among its key
attributes. If so math is in any case essential. But why should you suppose
it should be uniquely so? Why not co-essential with other attributes of the
first-emerged?

Best,
Whit

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 17, 2018, 6:34:59 AM4/17/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply. I am trying to grasp/consider the so-called "independent mathematical reality".


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 14 Apr 2018, at 14:19, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

First, even though I am ignorant in it, I agree that mathematics is a neat and powerful language.


I disagree. Mathematics is not a language at all. You might confuse mathematics and mathematical theories, which of course use some language, but it is always English or Natural language, like in all domain. But the mathematical reality is independent of the language used, and of the theories made to study it.

Hmmmm.  I hear you,  but don't immediately connect or grasp with such a reality.  You appear to be communicating about it using math-like noun/verb or identity/action types of symbols, so that makes it difficult for me to see the independence. After that,  I come to "stoichiometry ~within photosynthesis/respiration" which inherently has a lot of math-like transactions.  But, on your gameboard, I get the impression you disallow such a ~physical leaning reality.   Then come impressions on emotional and/or non- or pre-verbal realities -- or, moving into prayer or meditations, perhaps like Vedic folks reference.    But, so far I might have to say "I pass" on grounds of my own apparently matheematical reality dyscalculia.   I don't know what you mean by "independent mathematical reality". 

Perhaps you can clarify or exemplify,  or even remind me of what I may have forgotten or missed in my Civil Engineering education.  In my own terms now I can, basically, only relate by pointing at such a reality as being nested structured~duality, or as the deeper resonance of nested fields within nested fields. 

Moreover, I can imagine that the ~thing or universal expression that you are talking about looks or ~is intensely ~real or ~valid or ~universal and ~obvious, etc., to you. 

It is not obvious at all. It asks a lot of work to get some familiarity. It is counter-intuitive.

I feel less bad. Just how counter-intuitive is it?  Or after how many years of study and at what level , course or topic does it open to someone studying mathematics.
And, you may be correct or on a helpful track, but we, or many members of your audience, are just too ignorant.

Or perhaps not enough ignorant. People talks often like if they knew something, like if they knew that there is a primary physical reality. But why? How could they know that? ...

Sweating upon physical exertion? Tiredness?   Ecstasy  on a variety of  observations or experiences? Love? Etc.?   But even with these, I get the impression that your charge of affinity for a ~physical reality may be overblown, or it's just locked in as the squabble between Aristotle vs. Plato.     it seems by selecting the arithmetic realism route you polarize only on that perspective and that squabble.  Rather than either/or on just pure math vs. primary physical reality, why not consider the other alternatives, including both and more.

Or, as in my case, I've travelled a different path and stumbled upon my own favorite instance of nested structured~duality, that, for a variety of self-less,selfish and ecologically sound reasons I like to repeat and market.  Also, I favor my instance because, to me, the storyline grows sort of by itself, once I pick a particular structure and one or more (a set) of dualities. 

But you fail on the pedagogical issue. 
I am a simple mind. I do science because I appreciate its methodology: staring from clear assumption on which every good willing people agree, and from facts we agree on, and trying to explain the facts from the assumption. But in metaphysics, better to be neutral and not provide the answer at the start.

After looking it up, I guess I have to admit to not being even a mediocre  pedagogue.  I consider myself more as a paradigm mechanic and an explorer.  While I can and do appreciate your appreciation of the scientific method, I also see several signals and conditions in science and the world that indicate that we are not in the familiar realm of doing "normal science", to use a Kuhnian term.  Rather, we are in  a paradigm transition which occurs on something like a 400 year long cycle. That is, it's a fair bit more rare and perhaps worse that just passing through a  counter-intuitive  epicycle add-on to re-factor the xyz-cube/subjective-objective, mostly ~physical paradigm into  the next approximation which also models artifacts and attributes , also, of the ~mental realm as well.  Yet that is where we are and what we face.    So, Toto, we are no longer in Kansas -- in the realm of just doing doing normal science and normal science alone. 

FWIW, I will point out that I do pay lip service to considering the empirical portion of our scientific method and tradition by working most things through, just in the magnetic tetrahedral, i.e., analog math so that as one "does the math" that concurrently get certain empirical results.  That may be terse and unfamiliar, and poor or too terse a pedagogy but it does deliver physical intuition on several science- and domain-related things rather quickly. 

But, you are right that I do fail on the pedagogical issue and likely will continue to fail at it.    Witness it has taken several months to get to some agreement with you on the pervasiveness of nested structure.  How many more months or years might it take for you to grow the additional nested structural coding and protein-folding to support  nested structured~duality, if that is even possible to occur given your prevailing nested structural coding?  Also,  which institution do you think will rush to  offer me tenure to present my disruptive wares?

Failing as I am, I still have accomplished far, far more than I initially thought would ever become possible, so I can accept and embrace my many and nearly continuous failures.

I seem to hear that you feel that occurs within your storyline also. 

I started from biology and especially molecular genetics, and then, when I realise that elementary arithmetic already emulates the fascinating biological notion of selves, I get the point that mathematics is more fundamental than physics, and that the appearances of the physical was more easy to explain to a universal machine/number than the contrary.

By "arithmetic already emulates the fascinating biological notion of selves",  do you partially mean, like, each individual number of the counting numbers can be associated as or  like, "a self"?  So, for instance, today I could be 42,342,887,654 whereas an e.coli cell ~is 728,234,324 just before it divides? Then my three sons  and two grandsons are different (related) numbers or successors, like 3*s(ralph) or 2*s(s(ralph))?  That sort of thing?

Also, me having taken an alternate route, I get the point that the abstract math symbolism/expressions is secondary and riding along upon the primary internal analog math  -- which is a bit like an enhanced but also quick and dirty   translation of the Godelian "incompleteness" storyline/snippet.  That insight, arising from the different (magnetic tetrahedral) analog math proves itself as providing pedagogic value  in that the same analog math illuminates the underlying general principle while providing physical intuition on low level artifacts  and attributes in the ~physical and the ~mental realms (But without extensive prerequisites in the abstract mathematics. Where providing physical intuition was previously thought to  come ~only though the abstract math and/or just through the abstract mathematical physics channels...)  

I suggest that there is more that one way to skin a cat and multiple routes as in persisting along with one's meditations "within one's 'major'", does  yield different kinds of fruit.  Some paths have shorter routes and lesser actions to many generalities.    Others are more arduous and perhaps more specific and precise.   All the routes are valuable, and likely, 'priceless'.

As an "outsider" to your storyline, and if you think back to your studies w/ E.coli,  where you took the mathematical route,  I continued on peering into the aerobic and anaerobic microbiological complexities,   there are things that you assert as obvious or foundational, that I read differently. 

For instance,  where you write: """It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, """,   notice that  "It seems to me" is already equally or more ~universal, clearly true also,  or ~valid than 2+2=4. 

People argues since a long time on even the meaning of terms like “seem” or “me”. Not on 2+2=4 (when they understand what we are talking about, like in primary school).

Yes. Like I said. The "seems to me" part is actually the problem/domain/condition folks are trying to solve, improve upon, or model in the current paradigm transition.  You opting to start on the 2=2=4 part is a bit like the guy looking for his lost keys under the street lamp because it is easier to see there despite having lost the keys elsewhere.    That is,  initial conditions have  A LOT to do with outcomes as well as path length and action counts.   

Perhaps  in doing "normal science" or adding epicycles  your initial  conditions and approach do work out the best. Yet, the current challenge is not about doing more 'normal science'. The challenge is changing the scientific paradigm. Intuitively, or just with everyday common sense, beginning with different math should lead toward something different whereas initialing on the same old math, pretty likely leads to the same old same old.    

Don't you think?

Yes, if we want to humor you or go along with the mesmerization, the 2+2=4 is agreeable, but even at that, now we need to drill down into what "being agreeable" or "agreed upon"  is and/or means.   

In my storyline, whether I protein-fold out two fingers on each hand and then silently count and repeat the taught vocalization (hoping to say the correct answer), I visualize forming, or actually, re-forming some type of internal representation, say, in some hydrogen-bond stack (that links through protein-folding to influence expressions. Moreover, since, as you request, the inquiry is on agreement between individual humans,  the agreeing individuals sort of have to have similar internal representations and conditionings, common shared language, signaling skills and available energy, etc.. 

Yes, no problem. But biology is not metaphysics. When I studied biology, I was neutral if my life was a material happenings or not. That was the question I wanted to analyse, and eventually, it was clear that if the biological intuition for mechanism is founded, then ultimately the fundamental reality is immaterial. Mechanism leads to an immaterialist monism.

Okay,  notice you are starting out  assuming  physics and metaphysics levels of organization. Yes you have a 2000-5000 year long history on it,  but, as you say: So what?   Try renaming these to phlogiston and metaphlogiston to set the proper stage.   Notice what you are really doing is rather unconsciously inheriting or blindly adopting  two of the ancient nesting levels and then focusing in on the ancient expressions and trial theories  considering the  "primary matter" versus the "primary immateriality",   AKA, what later is,  ye olde wave-particle.  Yet, also notice, please, that ~you have completely snoozed off  on the nested structure organization or the fact that ~you seem to assume or accept that there  are just the two levels of organization: phlogiston and metaphlogiston.   Apparently, it doesn't matter that you are doing your studies 2000-5000 years down the road, you are still locked into the pilogiston-metaphlogiston two step.  

Okay. Yeah, you also are not alone in the cul-de-sac. 

The thing is, though, up here in modern science, agreed,   biology and molecular genetics are not metaphysics nor metaphlogiston.   But  what biology and molecular genetics are is nested structured~duality  and nested structural coding. In fact, to play the "are  not metaphysics" card and then rejoin in the ancient primary physical-immaterial debate, is sort of ignoring  or just not seeing ALL the nested structure. That tact -- staying with the two-step -- is sort of not even wrong. It's conceptually misleading, a perpetuation of a myopic error.  ~You start out adopting nested structure as a fundamental doing the initial split to get the two-step, but then ~you/folks go to sleep and switch over to building more idealized secondary nested structures in the abstract math.  Our reality is more that just the two-step and there is just the one underlying general principle of nested structured~duality -- the one that yields the two-step PLUS all the other levels of organization.

So, yeah, in the absence of awareness of the underlying general principle, the ancient echo holds a strong sway. The primary physical-immaterial/wave-particle strawdog debates can continue, and,potentially, that leads to things like shiny stacks of nested Turing devices doing or seeming to do many intricate things. 

In the presence of awareness of the underlying general principle, the ancient siren is quieted and scientists can focus in on what biology is  rather than what it is not.

So, while you may want to escape the messy complexity of our mostly carbon-water-based nested structural coding,

I don’t want to escape it. I want to explain it, and based it on more serious facts that observation and extrapolation.

Again,  initial conditions pretty much dictate outcomes.  The problem of concern is in the "it seems to me" part which you move away from, not in the 2+2=4 part which you move towards.   I expect you have a valuable contribution probably in explaining math and math-like things.  

the only way to do it is through denial or dissociation or something similar, maybe like idealization or going all in on arithmetic realism.

You need to see that it is a consequence of mechanism, my working hypothesis. I don’t claim any truth: I just count the evidences for this or that theory. If physics was still classical, or discrete, I would claim that the evidences are against mechanism and for materialism, but physics appears to confirm mechanism.

I suggest you are caught up in the ancient metaphlogiston and you are missing the boat on reality, fundamentally,  being nested structured~duality -- that physics and metaphysics levels, plus all the various math levels and other levels of nested fields within nested fields are riding along on the same single underlying general principle of nested structured~duality.  I sort of get that you are somewhat saying ~this same thing in your paragraph above, but you are casting your instance , I think, because of your initial election favoring  arithmetic realism, largely on the NSD where you insert "mechanism" for a ~structure and opt for at least one duality as "primary physical vs primary immaterial".  ~Clearly, "mechanism" is already not actually just a structure but is some kind of a nested structure or mixed structured-suality, so you are dealing with some odd or hybrid type of "nested nested structured~duality" -- perhaps accounting for some of the counter-intuitiveness.  Your emphasis on either/or -- no physical yet only immaterial, though, again, seems to me to be overly non-neutral, and seeming also harks back to the initial condition of pre-selecting  arithmetic realism.

Again, if you want to try to  explain something, please explain or exemplify what you (or Descartes) mean by of with the term: "mechanism"  (clearly enough so I may grasp it).   Sorry to still be so dense.
But, as soon as you inquire about getting agreement, the can of worms is free all over the lab bench and beyond.  Minimally ~you have invoked or activated nested structure --  riding on the likely rare agreement on mathematic-like relations between our first person and third person (group agreement) perspectives.   Internally, of course,  this so-called mathematics also goes by the name of stoichiometry, and in aerobic creatures links with the messy nested structural coding within aerobic respiration, that, after a fashion provides energy and protein-folding for an expression.

Also, where you suggest  2+2 = 4 is universal,  FWIW, I notice for that specific expression there is only the one instance and what you are talking more about is more like there is very broad agreement, you know, because we have most all learned and conditioned our protein-folding within  the 3-R's, etc.



I gave the whole theory: classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

And, eventually nothing else (beyond the invariance of my consciousness for a digital brain transplant).

Words describing each line might help.  Again, sorry to be so dense. I can imagine it must be very frustrating to try to communicate with me.

Where you focus on the broad agreement on numbers and arithmetic,  I have the impression that "everyone" more agrees on the fact that while they breathe they are alive. This seems more universal, to me, since it includes pre-school children and perhaps folks with dyscalculia.   
Breathing is explained from the numbers (and mechanism). Without mechanism, breathing is pure mystery.

Like some others, you confuse the assumption at the meta level of a theory with the theory itself. To explain group theory you need shall and blackboard, but shall and blackboard are not part of the theory of group. On the contrary, we explained how a shark work by using group theory/chemistry.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that numbers and even mechanism (whatever it is) does not fully or completely explain breathing.

Does it?
 

That leads into the seemingly messy entanglements of what you seem to think is the only alternative: material realism or physicalism, which you stepped away from when you opted to study math rather than microbiology. 

I remains silent on what I think or believe. I just say that there are more evidence for immaterialism than for materialism.

As in more nested fields within nested fields? Or as in more wave than particle?   I probably agree.  

What i sort of don't track on is what you may really mean by immaterial or if that term only comes in BECAUSE of your setup and initial conditions with the ancient patterns. As in, like you can ONLY choose either/or on physical-immaterial because those are the two options you can load into the program. 

  However, the messy problem is the one that confronts us so we might just as well consider it.   

Thus we get the informative generalization: reality, the physical and mental realms, and including mathematical expressions, is nested structured~duality.

That is a theorem in the mechanist theory, so you should not be unhappy with this. If your nested structure is primitive then you need to explain what they are in a language that everybody can understand, which actually includes the digital machines/numbers.

Bruno


What do you mean, Bruno: "That is a theorem in the mechanistic theory"? 

Unfortunately,  while I do use the simplified term of "nested structure",  my story continues to be that the fundamental, primitive underlying principle and common denominator is nested structured~duality -- pick a structure plus one of more dualities or differences and work outward from those initial conditions, so as to get different instances of NSD, which are also paradigms.  The generalization is that  nested structured~duality  is the paradigm of all paradigms, the root class, the primary principle.

If you want to get a feel for nested structured~duality align and feel four unlabelled rod magnets along radii of a tetrahedron.  Structure = tetrahedron; duality = attraction-repulsion. Two sets of two look and feel exactly the same, but are different when tested relative to the enfolding (nested) field.  Add an enfolding structure (placing the tetrahedron inside a cube) and the five pimary states spawn or add additional secondary states. 

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.


Think about it. 

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2018, at 05:47, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is nothing like any arithmetic reality of universal nature. There is an arithmetic theory built on some assumptions to to define, understand and describe nature and Laws governing the nature. For example, 1 plus 1 --2 is an assumption and not a universal fact of nature since in nature 1 entity say 1 tree, 1 proton or 1 dog is never equal to another  tree/proton/dog. Therefore,  1 tree plus 1 tree is never equal to 2 trees.

It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, which is complex and does not seems at it is, and explained with much more mathematical assumptions, like quantum field, complex numbers, etc.



You may argue that number 1 has nothing to do with the existence  of 1 tree/1 proton /1 dog.

Yes. I cannot sincerely doubt about the number 1. 
I cannot conceive waking up and stopping to believe in the number one.
But I can conceive waking up, and stopping to believe in tree or in protons. 



My point has been that without some discrete objects be it a tree or a proton or a dog AND a conscious mind/consciousness, none of the numbers 1 or 2 can arise or exist at all.

They do not need to arise. They do not need to exist physically. I have no problem seeing them as eternal idea in the mind of the cosmic consciousness, but with the mechanist assumption, there is a sort of mathematical miracle, as we can listen to the numbers and get the point that they are confronted to a cosmic consciousness and a matter illusion problem, very much like us, and without any other assumption that we can derive “it exists x such that x + 4 = 7” from 3 + 4 = 7.

Then we have the quantum mechanics confimation of the most startling consequence of compuationalism, which tends to make me finding plausible that it could be true.

The universal consciousness is a quite important concept, and matter too, but to assume them is like staring from the answer, and cannot convince me of anything. I have to start from what everybody agree. I doubt that you disagree with statement like 3+4=7, or 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 and its first order logical consequence, like it exists x, y and z such that x^2 + y^2 = z^2. Such triplet (x, y z) are the Pythagorean triples, and were discovered more that 5000 years ago, and have been rediscovered iindependently by others. Similarly nobody has ever found a solution to x^3 + y^3 = z^3, and that absence has been completely proved by Fermat. Then it took 300 years to figure out, by a sophisticated reasoning that for any n bigger than 2 x^n + y^n = z^n has no solutions (except the trivial one (0, 0, 0). But even without the solutions, we are all convinced that either the solution exist, or does not exist, whatever x, y, z represents as long as they obey to a very little set of rules on which we all agree, again, independently of any conception we can have on matter, or on consciousness. Then, consciousness and matter can be explained by relations of that kind, and it put might on both physics, and the discourse of the mystic. And all this can be shown to be necessary if we bet that there is no magic operating in the brain.

Bruno





Regards

Vinod Sehgal 



On Friday, April 13, 2018, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 9 Apr 2018, at 09:28, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruno, 
> Where you say, """At some point, when we arithmetize arithmetic, we use number for the symbol “0”, “+” “*”, “s”, “(“ and “)". For exemple we can use odd numbers for each symbol “0” is 3, “s” is 5, “(“ is 7, “)” is 9, etc. We can use the even numbers for the infinitely many variables x, y, z, x1, y1, z1 """,   all I see you doing is making up another instance of nested structured~duality. 
>
> So what?
> You could go at any congress, and tell all speakers, “all I see is that you make noise with your mouth”. 
> And you seem to not even try to explain what you mean by “nested structured-duality”. As far as I have an idea, I do agree with they are everywhere, but the goal is to understand what they are, where they come from, etc.
> And the “NSD” you saw in this context can be used to progress toward the understanding that we need not to assume more than elementary arithmetic, on which every schoolboy agree, and usually their parents to.
>
>
>
>  If you take it another step, you get down to arrays of strings of  one's and zeroes or to patterns of  higher and lower voltages, etc.  And someplace you need to have a look-up table of all your codings. 
>
> You missed the point. By the coding above, I was illustrating the principle used to show that the elementary arithmetic *reality* (not to confuse with any theory *of* arithmetic) is enough for that purpose. The true relations in arithmetic encodes all the look-up tables, or programs, and their relations. 
>
>
>
> Okay. So your have nested structural codings running within nested structural codings that others set up and created.  
>
> Not quite, that others have discovered in arithmetic, before still others implemented-incarnated them in the physical world. But with mechanism we bet, or we were inspired by Nature. I discovered computer science first in the bacteria Escherichia Coli, and just before becoming a biologiste, I discovered that this extraordinary thing I saw in the bacteria, was accomplished by simple number relations. So I decide to study Mathematics and Logic instead.
>
>
>
> Then what? What is the magic? 
>
> The Universal Turing Church Post Kleene Number. Especially the Gödel-Löbian one, which are the universal numbers which knows that they are Universal Numbers (and all the drastic consequences of that).
> It does not matter to choose very elementary arithmetic, or any system, for the deep theological conclusions.
> They are unknown which invites themselves to the debate, when if you look inward, you can recognise yourself. 
> They are pearls which mimics all other pearls, and they define a realm of coherent dreams, some transfinitely long, in some sense.
>
>  Why is it that you seem to say this can ONLY work in arithmetic even though you experience it and observe it working in atomic and molecular arrangements? 
>
> It works in all universal number/machine/programs/combinators/…
> If you dislike the numbers, I could use as well the combinators. It is very easy. K is a combinator, S is a combinator, and then you can combine them so that if x is a combinator, and y is a combinator, then (x y) is a combinator, written xy to avoid to much parenthesis. So, you can enumarate the combinators by they length + alphabetical order: K, S, KK, KS, SK, SS, KKK, K(KK), KKS, K(KS), etc. Note that K(KS) abbreviates the combinators.
> What are the combinators does not matter, as it should for elementary concepts. Raymond Smullyan seemed to believe they are birds in an magical forests. You might read “How to mock a Mocking Bird” to have the gist of what is a Turing universal <whatever>.
> Keep in mind I am a scientist, and the digital mechanist hypothesis, at the least, provides the mathematical, indeed arithmetical theory and theories to get precise enough to be testable.
> We agree on the nested structure. Any compact two dimensional universal dovetailing has to be infinitely nested, like the Mandelbrot set:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIEG0DRMZCE
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdtDYVywRa_hJkRd90hBb-YKd68x-xB2qoRkVuJ5kZQBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Fifth International Conference
>>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>>  
>>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>>  
>>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>>  
>>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>>  
>>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>>  
>>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>>  
>>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>>  
>>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>>  
>>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>>  
>>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/E9B7E53E-C1F3-4C7B-97A4-BE9DF0DD71A9%40ulb.ac.be.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Fifth International Conference
>>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>>> August 18—19, 2017
>>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>>  
>>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>>  
>>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>>  
>>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>>  
>>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>>  
>>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>>  
>>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>>  
>>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>>  
>>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>>  
>>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5CBDF2C8-96A4-427D-9BB0-190C76E84077%40ulb.ac.be.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Fifth International Conference
>> Science and Scientist - 2017
>> August 18—19, 2017
>> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
>> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>>  
>> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>>  
>> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>>  
>> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>>  
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>>  
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>  
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>  
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>  
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>  
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>  
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1AB120AF-1FE5-4E7B-A6ED-E8D1929B84EE%40ulb.ac.be.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>  
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>  
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>  
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>  
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>  
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>  
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>  
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>  
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcONzyApXsMzp04vPJ14XAS6mLyN7-Tqk19i2QkaoH9TA%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>  
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>  
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>  
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>  
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>  
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>  
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>  
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>  
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2018, at 05:47, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is nothing like any arithmetic reality of universal nature. There is an arithmetic theory built on some assumptions to to define, understand and describe nature and Laws governing the nature. For example, 1 plus 1 --2 is an assumption and not a universal fact of nature since in nature 1 entity say 1 tree, 1 proton or 1 dog is never equal to another  tree/proton/dog. Therefore,  1 tree plus 1 tree is never equal to 2 trees.

It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, which is complex and does not seems at it is, and explained with much more mathematical assumptions, like quantum field, complex numbers, etc.



You may argue that number 1 has nothing to do with the existence  of 1 tree/1 proton /1 dog.

Yes. I cannot sincerely doubt about the number 1. 
I cannot conceive waking up and stopping to believe in the number one.
But I can conceive waking up, and stopping to believe in tree or in protons. 



My point has been that without some discrete objects be it a tree or a proton or a dog AND a conscious mind/consciousness, none of the numbers 1 or 2 can arise or exist at all.

They do not need to arise. They do not need to exist physically. I have no problem seeing them as eternal idea in the mind of the cosmic consciousness, but with the mechanist assumption, there is a sort of mathematical miracle, as we can listen to the numbers and get the point that they are confronted to a cosmic consciousness and a matter illusion problem, very much like us, and without any other assumption that we can derive “it exists x such that x + 4 = 7” from 3 + 4 = 7.

Then we have the quantum mechanics confimation of the most startling consequence of compuationalism, which tends to make me finding plausible that it could be true.

The universal consciousness is a quite important concept, and matter too, but to assume them is like staring from the answer, and cannot convince me of anything. I have to start from what everybody agree. I doubt that you disagree with statement like 3+4=7, or 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 and its first order logical consequence, like it exists x, y and z such that x^2 + y^2 = z^2. Such triplet (x, y z) are the Pythagorean triples, and were discovered more that 5000 years ago, and have been rediscovered iindependently by others. Similarly nobody has ever found a solution to x^3 + y^3 = z^3, and that absence has been completely proved by Fermat. Then it took 300 years to figure out, by a sophisticated reasoning that for any n bigger than 2 x^n + y^n = z^n has no solutions (except the trivial one (0, 0, 0). But even without the solutions, we are all convinced that either the solution exist, or does not exist, whatever x, y, z represents as long as they obey to a very little set of rules on which we all agree, again, independently of any conception we can have on matter, or on consciousness. Then, consciousness and matter can be explained by relations of that kind, and it put might on both physics, and the discourse of the mystic. And all this can be shown to be necessary if we bet that there is no magic operating in the brain.

Bruno





Regards

Vinod Sehgal


On Friday, April 13, 2018, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 9 Apr 2018, at 09:28, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruno, 
> Where you say, """At some point, when we arithmetize arithmetic, we use number for the symbol “0”, “+” “*”, “s”, “(“ and “)". For exemple we can use odd numbers for each symbol “0” is 3, “s” is 5, “(“ is 7, “)” is 9, etc. We can use the even numbers for the infinitely many variables x, y, z, x1, y1, z1 """,   all I see you doing is making up another instance of nested structured~duality. 
>
> So what?
> You could go at any congress, and tell all speakers, “all I see is that you make noise with your mouth”. 
> And you seem to not even try to explain what you mean by “nested structured-duality”. As far as I have an idea, I do agree with they are everywhere, but the goal is to understand what they are, where they come from, etc.
> And the “NSD” you saw in this context can be used to progress toward the understanding that we need not to assume more than elementary arithmetic, on which every schoolboy agree, and usually their parents to.
>
>
>
>  If you take it another step, you get down to arrays of strings of  one's and zeroes or to patterns of  higher and lower voltages, etc.  And someplace you need to have a look-up table of all your codings. 
>
> You missed the point. By the coding above, I was illustrating the principle used to show that the elementary arithmetic *reality* (not to confuse with any theory *of* arithmetic) is enough for that purpose. The true relations in arithmetic encodes all the look-up tables, or programs, and their relations. 
>
>
>
> Okay. So your have nested structural codings running within nested structural codings that others set up and created.  
>
> Not quite, that others have discovered in arithmetic, before still others implemented-incarnated them in the physical world. But with mechanism we bet, or we were inspired by Nature. I discovered computer science first in the bacteria Escherichia Coli, and just before becoming a biologiste, I discovered that this extraordinary thing I saw in the bacteria, was accomplished by simple number relations. So I decide to study Mathematics and Logic instead.
>
>
>
> Then what? What is the magic? 
>
> The Universal Turing Church Post Kleene Number. Especially the Gödel-Löbian one, which are the universal numbers which knows that they are Universal Numbers (and all the drastic consequences of that).
> It does not matter to choose very elementary arithmetic, or any system, for the deep theological conclusions.
> They are unknown which invites themselves to the debate, when if you look inward, you can recognise yourself. 
> They are pearls which mimics all other pearls, and they define a realm of coherent dreams, some transfinitely long, in some sense.
>
>  Why is it that you seem to say this can ONLY work in arithmetic even though you experience it and observe it working in atomic and molecular arrangements? 
>
> It works in all universal number/machine/programs/combinators/…
> If you dislike the numbers, I could use as well the combinators. It is very easy. K is a combinator, S is a combinator, and then you can combine them so that if x is a combinator, and y is a combinator, then (x y) is a combinator, written xy to avoid to much parenthesis. So, you can enumarate the combinators by they length + alphabetical order: K, S, KK, KS, SK, SS, KKK, K(KK), KKS, K(KS), etc. Note that K(KS) abbreviates the combinators.
> What are the combinators does not matter, as it should for elementary concepts. Raymond Smullyan seemed to believe they are birds in an magical forests. You might read “How to mock a Mocking Bird” to have the gist of what is a Turing universal <whatever>.
> Keep in mind I am a scientist, and the digital mechanist hypothesis, at the least, provides the mathematical, indeed arithmetical theory and theories to get precise enough to be testable.
> We agree on the nested structure. Any compact two dimensional universal dovetailing has to be infinitely nested, like the Mandelbrot set:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIEG0DRMZCE
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>  
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>  
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>  
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>  
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>  
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>  
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>  
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>  
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 17, 2018, 6:34:59 AM4/17/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 15 Apr 2018, at 22:31, john.kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

Bruno, referencing your last comment, it is not vague. Very precise question. In a modeling relation there are information relations between a formal system and its referent (Rosen called it a natural system, but I won't say that since you are discarding nature).


I discard an ontological nature, to better explained it phenomenologically, as I have shown that we have to do this when we assume computationalism.




Clearly any formal system is about something - it cannot exist alone,

That is not correct. All formalism exist in arithmetic, like all digital machine. If you agree with the axioms of the very weak arithmetic of Robinson, then you can already prove the existence of the ZF, very rich set theoretical formalism, but of course you are not oblige to believe in it (just by accepting Robinson axioms). Robison axioms can prove the existence of a ll of insane formalism, claiming they are Napoleon.





although I sense that you try to get that result from your arguments against "stuff". The question is not if there is "something" the symbolic, mathematical, numerical, or formal system is about, the question at hand is if that "stuff" is fundamental as it was taken to be in modern, classical physics. We agree that it is not. You then argue that the numbers are fundamental, which to me is an equal and opposite error.

I derive this from mechanism, and only show it to be testable.




What is this desire to peg one side or the other of an obvious relation as fundamental?

The attempt of doing testable science.





So, I'm not asking about this, I'm informing you that it is a relation and that it makes more sense epistemologically to peg the relation as fundamental.

Relation are between things.





Then consciousness is easily associated with the relation - the information coding between objects and subjects, so consciousness is fundamental. QED.

I sort of agree with this at some level. But the relation between object and subject is explained by the (provably existing) non communicable part of the arithmetical reality. Wanting consciousness to be fundamental just to make machine not able to think is a bit like deciding from the appearance of people, and not what they say, to judge if they have a soul or not. That is flirt with the racist common idea that “we are superior” with some arbitrary notion of “we”.

But, if you are open that we can survive with digital physical brain, then it is only a matter of work to realise that arithmetic defines a cosmic differentiating flux of consciousness which brings the appearance of the physical reality as a secondary phenomenon.



If there is a question for you to answer about this, it is why in any stretch of logic you would want to call this a mechanism, which is the one thing it is provably not.

?

With mechanism, neither matter (appearance) nor consciousness are a mechanism. The number are confronted to a highly non computable reality (arithmetical truth). 




If you model the relation and consider that fundamental, it can produce images (models) of  mechanisms and also complex living systems.

From what? “Only relations” is vague.



Mechanism cannot model the important aspect of a complex or living system,

Hmm.. You might confuse the conception of machine before Gödel and after Gödel. Before we were sure that machine are the simplest to understand notions, but after we know it is the most difficult one.




which is precisely this information relation; it models a reduced aspect.

Not if the brain is Turing emulable. The “digital machine” is not a metaphor, but a mathematical notion.



And then, as I interpret your arguments, you tautologically assume that nature must be nothing more than this reduction, plus unknowability.

I assume only mechanism. From this, I derive that nature obeys precise physical laws, and we can compare with physics to assess or refute mechanism. It fits well up to now, and in a non trivial way (arguably).




But if you reify the relation itself, what mechanism must represent as uncertainty and unknowability (or an infinite regress of mechanisms), can be modeled directly - the relation between a defining context and that which it defines, not restricted to mechanism.

This is ambiguous. “Mechanism” is a theological principle according to which we survive some brain transformation. It is either true or false. Then, most of the machine and number relation are far beyond mechanism. The branch of math which studies this discrepancies between computer science and computer’s computer science is known as Recursion Theory, and is the skeleton of the machine/number theology. (Which is “us”, when assuming mechanism).



Indeed, that schema consists of many mechanistic models, but they are contained in contextual models, and the relation between context and mechanism is not itself mechanistic. Thus you preserve true complexity and still get to write mechanistic descriptions. But of course if you do not assume a nature that has more to it than mechanisms,

But most relations between number/machine are beyond number/machine. Arithmetic is far bigger than its computable part. So why add a mysterious physical nature than nobody have provided any evidence for? 




then mechanisms are sufficient for everything you are looking at because you are not looking at everything.

What is missing? Certainly not Nature, which is the thing explained from less.



We have done this for centuries.  I don't mean to be personally challenging here - all systems of description may have tremendous value so I wouldn't deem to attack the formalism you have created or its presumed value -- it is only the claim that it is the best approach possible or that it somehow achieves some completeness.


For the ontology, number or combinator are necessarily enough. I derive this from the assumption that brain are Turing emulable at some description level. The whole functioning of the brain in neurophysiology assumes this, like molecular biology, biochemistry.  But then the phenomenology, where consciousness and matter plays the key role, is shown to be incomple-able, like the whole arithmetical reality, except that some part are knowable, but not justifiable (a good place for having qualia).




Another point I'll throw in just to make myself a better target, I think the computational approach you describe must result in materialism if its foundation is numbers; it just hasn't been carried out to its logical result yet. That is my impression.

Usually people confuse mechanism and materialism, and many other used them interchangeably, so, my results are rather hard to be swallowed, but it is just prejudice, and with the digital character of the Truing-Church notion of machine, it is easier to explain the appearance of material machine to dreaming numbers than the contrary.

There are just no scientific evidences for primary matter or substance. It is only a simplifying assumption. With mechanism, physics becomes a subbranch of the universal person theology, associated to machine through the nuances enforced by incompleteness.

Bruno




To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 17, 2018, 1:55:05 PM4/17/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ralph,


On 16 Apr 2018, at 16:00, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

So what? So what?!  That's a good question. Thanks.

My impression on the "So what?", is that before, or say, during the wrangling in a paradigm shift or transition, you know, when some individual scribbles out  the suitably transcended expression,  the individual, or several different individuals, need to forge/form the different, more general expression or model -- different from ~prior ones -- but also helpful in diagnosing the  anomalous one(s).  Me noticing and expressing that reality is nested structured~duality  is an instance of that type of contribution.  Previously we had no name (okay, perhaps just in our western linguistic community, but maybe also in the entire global affair) for the underlying principle.  Now, we do.

You lost me here. I am a simple mind Ralph. 




So we end up with a handy universal generalization that we get to use as another tool, mostly in analysis and comparisons.

For instance,  where you write (elsewhere) : """It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, "”" 

Yes, Because there a few things between me and 456, say. I have never see people disagreeing on 456, where people disagree on most object in the mundane life. I know, or so I believe, the number 456. But I don’t know what is a chair. Yes, it is nested structured duality, but some will say it is a collection of singularities in a continuous complex quantum field, other will say that it is a set in a model of ZF, other will tell me it is figment in the mind of a sleepy god, and perhaps some of those views are true simulataneously, but then to explain all this on a serious base, we must start from agreeing on some thing, and most people agree on 456, even if they disagree on its role in metaphysics, but that is not important, as the metaphysics is driven by the metaphysical assumption that we can survive with a digital brain. To define digital, we need to assume that everyone agree on each of the following idea, which I hope you understand and believe: it is only a technical sum up of what we learn in high school(*).

(*). Classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Most adult believes in this, but some can doubt because they don’t understand the notation. Here s is the successors, and for example 
“x + s(y) = s(x + y) means the same than x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1. It provides even a rule to compute the addition of the two numbers.

Now the beauty is that by using just those principle + the usual induction axioms, we get a notion of “a number believe in the axiom above”, and the interesting things happens when we ask that numbers what he thinks about all that.

It is a long and tedious part, but once we get the idea, we can go quicker and quicker, with the assurance that we don’t introduce any more assumption that those above.

I can do that with another language, and without numbers, also, like with the combinators, and then the axioms are even shorter to describe, as it is simply

((K x) y) = x
(((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z))

You would be a kid on the SK planet, and I would be your math teacher, I would ask you to compute ((K K) K). It is very easy, by the application of the first axiom ((K x) y) = x, with x = K and y = K, you see that ((K K) K) is K.

I could have used the Turing machine, which are finite set of quadruples aBCd with a and d in an alphabet for internal configurations, and B and C in an alphabet of symbols. aBCd means if I am in state a, and see B on the tape, then I overwrite C and I put myself in configuration d.  That leads to the original definition of computations.

They seem different, but they can mimic each others, the numbers could mimic a combinators mimicking a Turing machine, and they do that all the “time”, out of time, in the arithmetical reality.



 the "it seems to me" part is a rather gangly, equally large  instance of nested structured~duality  making a idealized and, I think, dissociated or abstracted  reference about  the "2+2 = 4" instance of NSD.   Without the tool, I might fall for the mesmerization and follow the breadcrumbs not noticing it is front-loaded. Yes, yes, 2+2 = 4, but what manners of molecular and energetic transactions are also involved in "agreeing..." and expressing agreement (or inhibiting critical thinking)?


You seem to want to solve the conundrum before we put some precise piece of the puzzle on the table, so that we see the holes we still have to explain.

And I still don’t know what you mean by nested duality structure. You need to explain it in a language that the scientists can understand. So is it the language of physics, biology, metaphysics, mathematics, etc. What are you assuming





Minimally,  in a re-clarification of  "It seems to me...(and everyone in the audience must surely agree...)",  I believe you would have to reference some large masses of arithmetic for yourself and each of the individuals, and another large collection of arithmetic representing or providing as  "agreements", etc., 

Arithmetic is not important as such a priori. The key notion will be provability and computability, and the nuances impose by the incompleteness theorems.

That is the advantage of the cmputationalist hypothesis: there is already an extraordinary developed theory concerning the digital numbers/machine/combinators, etc.
Of course it is bad news for those who dislike studying mathematics.

But the relation between mathematics and theology run deeper. It is only the “modern” who lost the traditional links. The boring God/Non-God debate hide the original question, which is about which if more fundamental: physics or mathematics, or theology? The idea is that one, the ontology, explains better the two others, phenomenologically.




and in that you likely would also need to admit that say, the teachings of arithmetic from one generation of individuals DO get nested into the nested structural coding of subsequent generations of individuals which also emerge from their ecological, biological and genetic, in utero  priors.    That gets messy and cross-links


I would say structured and nested! But that is what already happens in your laptop. There are many layers of universality between the transistor boolean configuration, which is a physical universal number/combinators/Turing-machine, and the machine language, then C++, then higher level up to your mail application.



with a lot of ~physical stuff.

Yes, apparently, and ultimately: necessary apparently: space/time/energy/field/quantum analytical mathematics appears as the mathematical border of the mind of the universal machine/number/combinators/…

In a precise way so that we can compare the physics in the mind of the universal entity, and the physics outside. The difference measures our degree of non computationalism (or being failed by normal daemon, like our descendent income account, but that is newly possible).






And in that approach, which I think your storyline leaves as  "an exercise for the student”, 

?

I solve all the exercises that even one student cannot do. So ask, but I am not sure you really want to. 




AFTER they buy into the far distant possible success of  some sort of substitution  at some sort level of substitution level,  I think it is rather clear that what you are really proposing is symbolizing  the various features and aspects of reality just in abstract mathematical terms —

Not really. I start from an assumption believe by many people: mechanism: the brain is only a natural physical universal numbers/computers/intepreter/combinators/… That obeys a mathematics, well described in many books. May fetich bible is Kleene’s “Introduction to Metamathematics”, but I have many others.

Then I reason, and I do it in two ways:

By thought experiences, so that even kids can get the points,

By translating the whole problems in arithmetic using Gödel’s technics. Here I benefit from a wonderful theorem, due to Solovay, which gives the vey notion of believer to get a full neoplatonic theology, which includes the physics, in relation with what physics has to be, which again can be understood intuitively with the thought experiences.





more or less like a call-out for arithmetic realism.

In my context, it was just to avoid ultra-finitism. I assume less than any scientists, except some mathematical logiciens, but even them use strong logic to study vey weak logical system. Or if someone believe only in addition, or in abelian group. There are rich and complex non Turing universal mathematical structure, but we live in a reality where they exist, even if only locally hereby, but I have never heard of parents taking back their kids from school when they are taught that there is no bigger natural number.

I assume very few things. Less than most scientists and philosophers. During the thought experience, we can stay neutral on the nature of the physical reality, which is of course assumed, if only as decor for the reasoning.

I do not work at a level where we can agree or disagree. Only at a level where we can understand or do not understand.



That effort is probably fine for you  or any one else to do,  but from my perspective, applying the tool of NSD, 

That you keep undefined. Three words is not a theory. 


 I notice that  since you don't acknowledge the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality  explicitly,

This is weird.




it runs wild and rampant within your storyline and, in essence, reveals the contradictions that are rather naturally embedded in your slightly off-base storyline.

?




You jump back and forth from inherited ancient physical to/from metaphysical levels and then, after a long lull,  herein point at alleged "substitution levels" and yet even though you and your storyline apparently are dependent on there being such inherent nested structure, ~you don't formally acknowledge the underlying principle. 

It is because it is like sets, or numbers. They are everywhere, and thus are not interesting as they explains too much things. I prefer to go top-down, from some hypothesis which makes sense for many people (who sometimes believe it without knowing), and get a surprising consequence, i.e. surprising for the believer in Aristotle primitive matter: it vanishes, like ether and phlogiston.




Like a fish swimming in water, you don't see the nested structure  or the nested structured~duality  as fundamental.


Fundamental it can be. I will see. But it cannot be a primitive thing, or you have to be able to define it in some language (like first or second order logic: that can be done for all math, economy, laws and physics) and then, if it is not computable, explains the role of the non computable parts.




It's too familiar or too general for you to see.

I cannot say without more precisions on it. Sometimes it makes me thing of category theory, most the times it makes me thing of recursion: the mother of all finite and infinite testings in computer science. 




Plus, the underlying general principle has already given the xyz-cube/subjective-objective instance  which comes along with the many shiny number objects and computational relationships, in which your digital mechanistic storyline is deeply immersed. 

That is, you make no explicit provision or acknowledgement of the operable underlying general principle  in your tenets and storyline.   That is, you leave the underlying general principle  among  the unknowns even though you are obviously invoking it and depending upon it. 


That is not correct. I put *all* the cards on the table. And I use cards known by all people in each field that we have to cross. Now, not so much people knows simultaneously even just the base of quantum physics, mathematical logic, and platonic metaphysics/philosophy/theology.

Yet, all my definition are the standard one, in each filed crossed. That is why it has been a PhD in Computer Science.





 I get that within  the dominant cube/subjective-objective instance your approach seems pretty rational:  if or since the tiny chunks of matter are proving elusive, well, just erase ontology and hypothesize a purely mathematical representation/fabric -- particularly if you can ignore of deny the nesting and recursion and various wave-particle rerpesentations.

An alternative is to go back to the well and switch mathematical foundations.  Pull the five ways to align four rod magnets  along radii of tetrahedron out of the hat and participants instantly gets analog math that yields physical intuition on  variable mass density multiple states, a look and feel model of our  and our enfolding environment's sp^3 hybridized bonding pattern, along with a rather clear *feel* for the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality.   

Then one can look back and observe that the underlying general principle is actually objective -- a repeating pattern. Pick a structure; pick a duality; nest things outward to their limits.   Thus we have cube/subjective-objective; Tao/yin-yang;  Tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion (attraction +- nested spin);  digital substitution at some (nested) substitution level, etc.

Within the prevailing cube/subjective-objective paradigm boundary, perhaps your storyline works out -- humans create human-like substitution products or mutations --- more instances of nested structured~duality.   But why not introduce the underlying general principle and then try to cooperate with it? Why not change scientific paradigms? 


This not to say your mathematical expressions that you contribute and contribute to, are flawed or not helpful. They are just incomplete, not the complete story, and in many ways, not a good broad spectrum approximation to foster the types of intuition (physical, emotional, etc.,).   In addition to the unreasonable effective of abstract mathematics,  there are also other ways to skin a cat, even Schrodinger's cat/dead-live.    

The underlying general principle of nested structured~duality makes that clear.  In addition to doing ditigal substitutions on brains, another option is just to change tenets of our "working" paradigm.   For those who can grasp it, NSD is just a simple, terse  approximation which allows ~seeing reality,  not just as tiny chunks of matter, or as just stacks of numbers, but as something different and perhaps new, as the underlying common denominator.  Considering nested structured~duality leads to ~seeing reality as nested structural coding -- of reality as nested fields within nested fields -- and that prompts for people appreciating, let's say, multidimensional resonance.  Yes, it has digital and analog  and computational-like representations, but it is not just one of those alone. 



It is not a final thing. In the deep “soccer” play between Aristotle and Plato, it is just that Plato win the last match. 
And understanding what is the universal machine (the big discovery of Babbage-Post-Turing-Church-Kleene of last century, a mathematical discovery) the Pythagorean get reason and tools to proceed. 

Keep in mind that I ahem just ask you what you mean by the NSD when you seemed to use them as opposed to Mechanism, where I just said that I did not see the opposition.

Bruno




To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 17, 2018, 3:51:07 PM4/17/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 16 Apr 2018, at 19:11, Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

   On 14 Apr 2018, at 15:24, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu>
   wrote:

   We cannot even discuss it without natural realizations such as the physical
   system carrying this email.

That is right, but that does not prove that those natural realisation are
material. It could be like a video-game, given that those video game exist in
arithmetic.

Bruno,

On the one hand, you propose a proof that IF a basically functionalist
substitution of parts for organs procedure preserves consciousness THEN
Aristotelian materialistic physics fails. So where most functionalists are
physicalists, you're not. That's a fascinating, and unusual -- perhaps
entirely orginal -- stance.

OK. (But I think Xeusippes and other students of Plato or of platonism were open to this or similar).



On the other, you now bring in the "How do we know we're not in a
simulation" discussion that, to be sure, many functionalists are fascinated
by. Yet the video games as-we-know-them exist on physical substrates.

Yes, but if you do the math, they are emulated by number relations too. In fact a physical computer is a machine which enacts physically the number relations which defines the computations.

The physical implementations allows the universal number to manifest the consciousness with respect to each other, but in arithmetic, that happens too because all universal computations are done, and that contains computations which mimic couples, triple, quadruples, etc; of universal machines interacting with each other. Arithmetic emulate the programs which compute the wave functions of the entire Milky-Way, including Magellan, at the level of string theory, with 10^(1¨^1000) decimals. Which is rather dumb, and later I can explain why such computations “misses” the normal measure, but it illustre that physical might be a relative notion: it is how a universal machine can interact with a much deeper older universal machine.
Yet, as we are indeterminate on the set of all computations, below the substitution level, we must witness the “parallel” computations, on which the measure one of the observable operates, but that smells already like the physics of Schroedinger-Feynman-Everett.




Something has to hold or contain and provide pathways for the numbers, and
constrain their interactions and iterations.

Yes, but it has to do magically or statistically from all computations. You seems to be like Bohm adding particles in the wave, despite without particles, we get the norm physical discourses on the particles. That introduces zombies in the waves.  The same for arithmetic, any creature which behaves like if she is conscious, is respected as such, and arithmetic is big, *very* big, from inside.




Now, Turing theory holds that the same routines can be instantantiated upon
many different substraits -- thus allowing the sort of substitution of quite
different parts beneath the same functional routines, as you posit. But you
seem to claim that math can _also_ be implemented, instantiated on a void
substrate.

All digital machines *are* implemented in arithmetic. You don’t even need a void substrate. You need only the usual truth about 0, 1, 2, 3, …
Or the less known truth about K, S (K K), (K S), …

You can see the choice of one universal machinery as a choice of a “base”. Imagine we choose as universal basis the interpreter LISP, then you can write all programs in LISP, and you can enumerate the programs technically, indeed by a LISP program.Let call them P_0, P_1, P_2, P_3, …
Then in that base, a universal number is a number us such that P_u (x, y) = P_x(y). We say that P_u emulates the program x on the input y. In that LISP base, there will be a FORTRAN number f, a combinators number c, etc. Chosing a universal system is the same as associating a precise number to each programs, like a base in the place attribute a couple of number to a point in the plane. 

But if you choose arithmetic, which is already such a system, the emulation are done in virtue of the truth of some relation. 
For example, a truth like “the register (8, 5, 6, 8, 4) contains 5, will correspond to a statement it is true that the number 2^5 divides 2^8 * 3^5 * 5^6 * 7^8 * 11^4.





That may have no more problem, logically, than physicalist claims that
matter emerges from breaks in the symmetry of the void. So in that sense it
doesn't tilt the argument against your anti-physicalist claims. Each stance
has the same apparent shortcoming -- explaining the void as a substrate for
a lawful, emergent realm.

Physicist have to explain how a physical worlds, with the help of any God, can make a universal machine distinguishing arithmetic from a physical universe. I give them a tool to see if a god or some Matter plays a role, but the evidence get so far, it does not.

We can prove the existence of computations, from simple relations in which everyone believe. We can’t prove nor really define matter or consciousness, but mechanism makes matter into a sum on all computations, which can be handled mathematically and compared to the observation. As long as it fits, there is no evidence for a physical universe interfering with the web of computations already emulated, out of time and space, in virtue of the intemporal relations among numbers.




Yet, given the shared assumption, why should we presume math takes priority,

Not math, arithmetic. Because it contains a universal dreamer which get sleepy all the times ...



is as it were the first to emerge from the void?

Which void? A physical void? I have only (beside logic with identity). 

0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x

The direct notion of void is the number 0, but it takes big numbers to understand that, and the physical vaccuum comes from the sum on all computations, at place where the interference are calm down the observable somehow.



It may be that whatever
first emerges, to be lawful, has to include mathmaticalization among its key
attributes. If so math is in any case essential. But why should you suppose
it should be uniquely so? Why not co-essential with other attributes of the
first-emerged?

I am OK with this, as long as you don’t add anything, as the consciousness of the universal numbers, before getting differentiated along the many computations, is co-essential with the numbers or digital being existing in arithmetic, or combinatoric, of fortranic, our lispic etc.

We need only one universal machinery, and we could take string theory, but that would be cheating and confusing when we extract the physics from string theory. Better to stat-rt from the less physical looking universal system, to avoid the confusion between the ontology which is independent of the “base”, and derive physics, which will choose and imposed some collection of “bases” (and bases!).

Best,

Bruno



Best,
Whit


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 18, 2018, 11:50:29 AM4/18/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Bruno. Comments below...

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Hi Ralph,


On 16 Apr 2018, at 16:00, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

So what? So what?!  That's a good question. Thanks.

My impression on the "So what?", is that before, or say, during the wrangling in a paradigm shift or transition, you know, when some individual scribbles out  the suitably transcended expression,  the individual, or several different individuals, need to forge/form the different, more general expression or model -- different from ~prior ones -- but also helpful in diagnosing the  anomalous one(s).  Me noticing and expressing that reality is nested structured~duality  is an instance of that type of contribution.  Previously we had no name (okay, perhaps just in our western linguistic community, but maybe also in the entire global affair) for the underlying principle.  Now, we do.

You lost me here. I am a simple mind Ralph. 

If you are a scientist or operating as a scientist, you are running  SOME scientific paradigm -- a ~mental model or template, involving a set of tenets or assumptions which provide for modeling, descriptions, etc., regarding ~reality and the nature and workings of reality.     Scientific paradigms are like trial theories that people agree upon and haggle over and use to guide developments in various aspects of human endeavors. They change and are adapted as scientists become aware of  anomalies or of additional features and relationships that were previously not included or accounted for well or at all  in the prior trial theory.  Thomas S. Kuhn wrote an interesting short book on this, entitled "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which paints one picture on scientific paradigms and how they change.  He describes activities during periods  of normal science as differing from activities  during periods of paradigm shifts or transitions.  Some paradigm transitions in science are larger than others and occur less frequently than other types or magnitudes of revision.  During transitions, people ~migrate from the prior trial theory to a new trial theory, typically, because the new trial theory is more general and more effective than the prior or other contenders. 

In our current condition, for instance, say, in the central issues expressed in this forum or with the recent Science of Consciousness conference, etc., a mere  ~380 years into the Cartesian worldview and  its associated  epicycles,  we presently face developing a scientific paradigm that gives some coherent account for  physical artifacts and attributes and mental artifacts and attributes.    The prior paradigm, largely, basically only gives account for physical artifacts and attributes so the paradigm transition appears to be a rather substantial change.


It turns out that the term and principle I express as in "reality is nested structured~duality (NSD)" where generally, one picks a structure and one or more dualities or differences to build a model, or to model models, this pattern works for things in the physical realm and also the mental realm, as foor artifacts in the ~standard model and astrophysics on the physical side and, on the mental side,  a thought being some dualic structure that reflects, echos, associates with some other structured duality.   Since this pattern works for one thought, it works for groups of thoughts and thus for all paradigms.   

And here, I will add, the nested structured~duality  pattern also extends to cover as a pattern for all metadigms. Thus, nested structured~duality  is the paradigm for  paradigms and metadigms -- the common denominator, the underlying general principle.

So we end up with a handy universal generalization that we get to use as another tool, mostly in analysis and comparisons.

For instance,  where you write (elsewhere) : """It seems to me that 2+2=4  is more universal, and clearly true than anything about nature, "”" 

Yes, Because there a few things between me and 456, say. I have never see people disagreeing on 456, where people disagree on most object in the mundane life. I know, or so I believe, the number 456. But I don’t know what is a chair. Yes, it is nested structured duality, but some will say it is a collection of singularities in a continuous complex quantum field, other will say that it is a set in a model of ZF, other will tell me it is figment in the mind of a sleepy god, and perhaps some of those views are true simulataneously, but then to explain all this on a serious base, we must start from agreeing on some thing, and most people agree on 456, even if they disagree on its role in metaphysics, but that is not important, as the metaphysics is driven by the metaphysical assumption that we can survive with a digital brain.

I can kind of see your approach in seeking out things people seem to agree on, but I wonder who Copernicus would be in history if he steadfastly started with everyone's obvious agreement on the Earth being the center with all other bodies going around it. 

The other way way to look at the so-called "disagreements" that you list above  is to consider them as the accummulated  anomalies  that have developed as a result of  folks working within the tenets of the Cartesian Cube/subjective-objective; space-time;mass-energy  scientific paradigm.    Within that perspective, as Kuhn outlines, one typically faces peering into and creating a new paradigm which resolves anomalies which the prior paradigm has spawned.  

With this backdrop, 

"""a collection of singularities in a continuous complex quantum field, 
a set in a model of ZF, 
a figment in the mind of a sleepy god..."""

 are all anomalies spawned by the prevailing dominant scientific paradigm that lacks coherent support for "consciousness" or mental artifacts and attributes beyond the subjective-objective categorizations.

Then, """ ...to explain all this on a serious base, we must start from agreeing on some thing""". 

Looking at the list as a list of anomalies, one simple resolution is to note and agree upon these anomalies that you list are all various instances of nested structured~duality. 

In contrast,  your approach focusing on how people agree on numbers and math-like relations continues to extend or spiral outward as: """and most people agree on 456, even if they disagree on its role in metaphysics, but that is not important, as the metaphysics is driven by the metaphysical assumption that we can survive with a digital brain."""

Hello?  Pardon me.  I don't recall  agreeing or considering or assuming that we can survive with a (substituted) digital brain or that that is even the relevant issue or objective.  I can somewhat see how the two  paths might be related in that my approach involves changing  what we think -- our paradigm, where as your approach seems to rely upon what seems like a much for sweeping, drastic, and even facetious  entire change of  substance rather than merely doing a simple change in scientific paradigm. 

So, I get the impression that you appear to be working on resolving one problem, whereas I am resolving a different type of problem.   Comments? Do you agree?

 
To define digital, we need to assume that everyone agree on each of the following idea, which I hope you understand and believe: it is only a technical sum up of what we learn in high school(*).

(*). Classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Most adult believes in this, but some can doubt because they don’t understand the notation. Here s is the successors, and for example 
“x + s(y) = s(x + y) means the same than x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1. It provides even a rule to compute the addition of the two numbers.

Truthfully. whether it is actual dyscalculia or just my inability to parse the notation, I  do get more from your English translation and extended associations than from the notation.   If "it provides a rule..." it would help to have that presented and described because I already think I have the rule in 1+2 equally 3...


Now the beauty is that by using just those principle + the usual induction axioms,

[additional disconnect]  

we get a notion of “a number believe in the axiom above”, and the interesting things happens when we ask that numbers what he thinks about all that.

I can imagine or give the benefit of the doubt that such figures of speech means something to you,  but I observe you dissociating here and projecting human traits and qualities on, or you personifying numbers. So I observe what appears to be you blurring your number sense with you personal sense but not really being aware that you are doing that.


It is a long and tedious part, but once we get the idea, we can go quicker and quicker, with the assurance that we don’t introduce any more assumption that those above.

That sounds hopeful. 

I can do that with another language, and without numbers, also, like with the combinators, and then the axioms are even shorter to describe, as it is simply

((K x) y) = x
(((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z))

You would be a kid on the SK planet, and I would be your math teacher, I would ask you to compute ((K K) K). It is very easy, by the application of the first axiom ((K x) y) = x, with x = K and y = K, you see that ((K K) K) is K.

[disconnect] 

I could have used the Turing machine, which are finite set of quadruples aBCd with a and d in an alphabet for internal configurations, and B and C in an alphabet of symbols. aBCd means if I am in state a, and see B on the tape, then I overwrite C and I put myself in configuration d.  That leads to the original definition of computations.

...such quadruples moving from state to state seem reminiscent  of  giving an n4 magnetic tetrahedron one one-half spin to get to an n3s state.   However,  in your storyline perhaps I can see that as long as you keep your computer  energized and running, and the instruction lists or rules lists running, okay, it generates or moves  along through a series of states. Yet, do you have to stack and nest devices to have some stacks select or guide or monitor for certain states or state patterns in the others?

Whereas, stepping from the cruse n4 ...n3s... analog math to sp^3 molecular bonding in chemistry and biochemistry, therein,  the enfolding nested structured~duality   works through photosynthesis-respiration and the carbon-water-based nested structural coding so as to maintain more of a resonance moving from state to state. 

They seem different, but they can mimic each others, the numbers could mimic a combinators mimicking a Turing machine, and they do that all the “time”, out of time, in the arithmetical reality.

Yes, of course they do, or appear to be doing that.  That is just how nested structured~duality  is and works. Or you could say, that is how  such things are and seem since ALL the instances are internally represented in   carbon-water-based nested structural coding -- in the energy-materials-related stoichiometry.

I'll go out on the limb here, blaspheme loudly  in your church and say --  even what you identify as "the arithmetical reality". 
 the "it seems to me" part is a rather gangly, equally large  instance of nested structured~duality  making a idealized and, I think, dissociated or abstracted  reference about  the "2+2 = 4" instance of NSD.   Without the tool, I might fall for the mesmerization and follow the breadcrumbs not noticing it is front-loaded. Yes, yes, 2+2 = 4, but what manners of molecular and energetic transactions are also involved in "agreeing..." and expressing agreement (or inhibiting critical thinking)?
You seem to want to solve the conundrum before we put some precise piece of the puzzle on the table, so that we see the holes we still have to explain.

Maybe.  But as outlined above I think we two are aiming to resolve two different problems. Or, if not, then we are taking two different approaches in that, up front,  I see what you call irrelevant disagreements as most relevant paradigm anomalies and I deal with such conundrums in the second or third step by applying the common denominator -- by applying the underlying general principle.  Voila. Bob's your uncle. Reality is nested structured~duality.

I might say what you say differently in that  it comes down to our initial diagnoses and approaches.  You see disagreements and opt for the agreed upon ordered numbers plus ancient logic.  In the list of disagreements you present, I see anomalies and apply the  new analog math.   Considering those as two ways to skin a cat, you further may want to encourse folks get a second opinion before going under the knife of the digital surgeon.  Do they need or want a wholehog digital transplant, or would they first like to try a more natural remedies like just changing scientific paradigms?


And I still don’t know what you mean by nested duality structure. You need to explain it in a language that the scientists can understand. So is it the language of physics, biology, metaphysics, mathematics, etc. What are you assuming.

See above.
Minimally,  in a re-clarification of  "It seems to me...(and everyone in the audience must surely agree...)",  I believe you would have to reference some large masses of arithmetic for yourself and each of the individuals, and another large collection of arithmetic representing or providing as  "agreements", etc., 

Arithmetic is not important as such a priori. The key notion will be provability and computability, and the nuances impose by the incompleteness theorems.

Key notion in solving which problem?  What is you aim? 

That is the advantage of the cmputationalist hypothesis: there is already an extraordinary developed theory concerning the digital numbers/machine/combinators, etc.
Of course it is bad news for those who dislike studying mathematics.

True.   Of course it also first manifests  in carbon-water-based internal nested structural coding and ifs communicated  via protein-folding expressions and molecular vibrations.

But the relation between mathematics and theology run deeper. It is only the “modern” who lost the traditional links. The boring God/Non-God debate hide the original question, which is about which if more fundamental: physics or mathematics, or theology? The idea is that one, the ontology, explains better the two others, phenomenologically.

Regarding faith, I think I favor the old time religion first (~accept  God first and all things will be added to you), and then on the childish, pre-mature squabble or mud wrestling on fundamental physics first  versus fundamental mathematics first, I note that this squabble  so far only exists within the ~Western or Ancient Greel/Cartesian  cube/subjective-objective scientific paradigm. You know, the one we are trying to upgrade so that it also gives a better account for "consciousness"?  The incomplete one.  

Then, when one migrates over to reality being nested structured~duality,  rather than trying to mashup consciousness in terms of space-time-energy-matter-etc., it becomes pretty easy to observe that one of the reasons for the unreasonable effectiveness of abstract math modeling physical phenomena is both are structural coded internally, in our same carbon-water-based nested structural coding.   There is only the one internal nested structural coding; only the one nested structured~duality.  Squabble is over. I mean, that prior squabble is over.
and in that you likely would also need to admit that say, the teachings of arithmetic from one generation of individuals DO get nested into the nested structural coding of subsequent generations of individuals which also emerge from their ecological, biological and genetic, in utero  priors.    That gets messy and cross-links


I would say structured and nested!

Potato-potato!    I can sort of feel you clawing to stay fixed to the riverbank.   I really will go easier if you can just try to accept the less reducted, slightky more unified nested structured~duality.
   
But that is what already happens in your laptop. There are many layers of universality between the transistor boolean configuration, which is a physical universal number/combinators/Turing-machine, and the machine language, then C++, then higher level up to your mail application.

Yes, lots of nested structured~duality.  Silicon and silicates are also ~tetrahedral, sp^3 hybridized (I think). 

with a lot of ~physical stuff.

Yes, apparently, and ultimately: necessary apparently: space/time/energy/field/quantum analytical mathematics appears as the mathematical border of the mind of the universal machine/number/combinators/…

In a precise way so that we can compare the physics in the mind of the universal entity, and the physics outside. The difference measures our degree of non computationalism (or being failed by normal daemon, like our descendent income account, but that is newly possible).

?
And in that approach, which I think your storyline leaves as  "an exercise for the student”, 

?

I solve all the exercises that even one student cannot do. So ask, but I am not sure you really want to. 

What problem are you trying to solve or resolve? 
AFTER they buy into the far distant possible success of  some sort of substitution  at some sort level of substitution level,  I think it is rather clear that what you are really proposing is symbolizing  the various features and aspects of reality just in abstract mathematical terms —
Not really. I start from an assumption believe by many people: mechanism: the brain is only a natural physical universal numbers/computers/intepreter/combinators/… That obeys a mathematics, well described in many books. May fetich bible is Kleene’s “Introduction to Metamathematics”, but I have many others.

Then I reason, and I do it in two ways:

By thought experiences, so that even kids can get the points,

By translating the whole problems in arithmetic using Gödel’s technics. Here I benefit from a wonderful theorem, due to Solovay, which gives the vey notion of believer to get a full neoplatonic theology, which includes the physics, in relation with what physics has to be, which again can be understood intuitively with the thought experiences.

more or less like a call-out for arithmetic realism.

In my context, it was just to avoid ultra-finitism. I assume less than any scientists, except some mathematical logiciens, but even them use strong logic to study vey weak logical system. Or if someone believe only in addition, or in abelian group. There are rich and complex non Turing universal mathematical structure, but we live in a reality where they exist, even if only locally hereby, but I have never heard of parents taking back their kids from school when they are taught that there is no bigger natural number.

I assume very few things. Less than most scientists and philosophers. During the thought experience, we can stay neutral on the nature of the physical reality, which is of course assumed, if only as decor for the reasoning.

I do not work at a level where we can agree or disagree. Only at a level where we can understand or do not understand.

So, again, what is "mechanism"? 

That effort is probably fine for you  or any one else to do,  but from my perspective, applying the tool of NSD, 

That you keep undefined. Three words is not a theory. 

Theory of relativity:  three words.      We may need to discuss more which problem you are trying to solve, resolve. Perhaps you can comment more  about  your aim and which paradigm you see yourself working within and or attempting to revise.
 I notice that  since you don't acknowledge the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality  explicitly,

This is weird.
it runs wild and rampant within your storyline and, in essence, reveals the contradictions that are rather naturally embedded in your slightly off-base storyline.
?
You jump back and forth from inherited ancient physical to/from metaphysical levels and then, after a long lull,  herein point at alleged "substitution levels" and yet even though you and your storyline apparently are dependent on there being such inherent nested structure, ~you don't formally acknowledge the underlying principle. 

It is because it is like sets, or numbers. They are everywhere, and thus are not interesting as they explains too much things. I prefer to go top-down, from some hypothesis which makes sense for many people (who sometimes believe it without knowing), and get a surprising consequence, i.e. surprising for the believer in Aristotle primitive matter: it vanishes, like ether and phlogiston.

So, just a philosophical exercise?   That has no relation with carbon or water, wave-particle,  or biochemistry or revising the scientific paradigm or building-revising a model/paradigm accounting for ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes?
Like a fish swimming in water, you don't see the nested structure  or the nested structured~duality  as fundamental.


Fundamental it can be. I will see. But it cannot be a primitive thing, or you have to be able to define it in some language (like first or second order logic: that can be done for all math, economy, laws and physics) and then, if it is not computable, explains the role of the non computable parts.

Dyscalculia is starting to look more and more likely for me. Maybe even attractive.

What is on the primitives menu: quarks, wave-particle,  nested fields within nested fields, arithmetic/numbers, cosmic consciousness tendrils, dark matter, noostuff, sp^3 hybridized bonding?

As an approximation I'd say the primitive  is tetrahedron with attraction and one-half spins.  

t's too familiar or too general for you to see.

I cannot say without more precisions on it. Sometimes it makes me thing of category theory, most the times it makes me thing of recursion: the mother of all finite and infinite testings in computer science. 

If you go back to the analog math ( https://magnetictetrahedra.com/images/phpshow.php ) and feel a n4 magnetic tetrahedron and then give one of the magnets one-half spin end for end to get n3s, then you mentally slide over into Debye electronegativity-sp^3 re[resentation and then into organic (cabron-water-based...) chemistry,  there are large but not infinite numbers of ways for the ~100+ elements to combine and  interact within the enfolding nested fields.  In organic chemistry some guiding influences are steric hindrance (structural effects), resonance and inductive effects.  Our resonance states are also guided by our slower changing genetic nested structural codings so if our atoms are like  primitives or quasi-primitives, our nested structural coding actually is restricting and limiting ~us to  certain numbers and types of states. Similarly with certain conditions spawning enzymes to catalyze or inhibit some and not other transformations. This is occurring as a result of the enfolding nested fields within nested fields.     I'll take a wild guess here and say this nested analog math is not currently computable, much less to add a few other levels of nesting that provide internal representation of surroundings relevant to guiding energy-materials collection and conservation for individuals and for groups.  

Plus, the underlying general principle has already given the xyz-cube/subjective-objective instance  which comes along with the many shiny number objects and computational relationships, in which your digital mechanistic storyline is deeply immersed. 

That is, you make no explicit provision or acknowledgement of the operable underlying general principle  in your tenets and storyline.   That is, you leave the underlying general principle  among  the unknowns even though you are obviously invoking it and depending upon it. 


That is not correct. I put *all* the cards on the table. And I use cards known by all people in each field that we have to cross. Now, not so much people knows simultaneously even just the base of quantum physics, mathematical logic, and platonic metaphysics/philosophy/theology.

I may need to apologize to you for my projection since I think it is becoming clear that you are working on one kind of problem and I am  just trying to make a rather small change in the dominant scientific paradigm.   As outline above, you initialize by focusing on the 22+2=4 part where as I initialize on the "It seems to me" part and see your disagreements as anomalies of the dominant scientific paradigm.

Yet, all my definition are the standard one, in each filed crossed. That is why it has been a PhD in Computer Science.

Pardon me.  And congratulations.
 I get that within  the dominant cube/subjective-objective instance your approach seems pretty rational:  if or since the tiny chunks of matter are proving elusive, well, just erase ontology and hypothesize a purely mathematical representation/fabric -- particularly if you can ignore of deny the nesting and recursion and various wave-particle rerpesentations.

An alternative is to go back to the well and switch mathematical foundations.  Pull the five ways to align four rod magnets  along radii of tetrahedron out of the hat and participants instantly gets analog math that yields physical intuition on  variable mass density multiple states, a look and feel model of our  and our enfolding environment's sp^3 hybridized bonding pattern, along with a rather clear *feel* for the underlying general principle of nested structured~duality.   

Then one can look back and observe that the underlying general principle is actually objective -- a repeating pattern. Pick a structure; pick a duality; nest things outward to their limits.   Thus we have cube/subjective-objective; Tao/yin-yang;  Tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion (attraction +- nested spin);  digital substitution at some (nested) substitution level, etc.

Within the prevailing cube/subjective-objective paradigm boundary, perhaps your storyline works out -- humans create human-like substitution products or mutations --- more instances of nested structured~duality.   But why not introduce the underlying general principle and then try to cooperate with it? Why not change scientific paradigms? 


This not to say your mathematical expressions that you contribute and contribute to, are flawed or not helpful. They are just incomplete, not the complete story, and in many ways, not a good broad spectrum approximation to foster the types of intuition (physical, emotional, etc.,).   In addition to the unreasonable effective of abstract mathematics,  there are also other ways to skin a cat, even Schrodinger's cat/dead-live.    

The underlying general principle of nested structured~duality makes that clear.  In addition to doing ditigal substitutions on brains, another option is just to change tenets of our "working" paradigm.   For those who can grasp it, NSD is just a simple, terse  approximation which allows ~seeing reality,  not just as tiny chunks of matter, or as just stacks of numbers, but as something different and perhaps new, as the underlying common denominator.  Considering nested structured~duality leads to ~seeing reality as nested structural coding -- of reality as nested fields within nested fields -- and that prompts for people appreciating, let's say, multidimensional resonance.  Yes, it has digital and analog  and computational-like representations, but it is not just one of those alone. 
It is not a final thing. In the deep “soccer” play between Aristotle and Plato, it is just that Plato win the last match. 

Just wondering, but what prevented Plato fans and the Pythagorean from proceeding anyway, previously, on their own? What was the problem, inadequate paradigmatic consensus?
 
And understanding what is the universal machine (the big discovery of Babbage-Post-Turing-Church-Kleene of last century, a mathematical discovery) the Pythagorean get reason and tools to proceed. 

Isn't the full name of "the universal machine", "the universal computing machine"?  Not the universal thinking machine or the universal biochemistry replacement machine, but the universal computing machine.   

    Keep in mind that I ahem just ask you what you mean by the NSD when you seemed to 
    use them as opposed to Mechanism, where I just said that I did not see the opposition.

Bruno

Is this your attempt at answer to my recurrent requests for you to explain/describe "mechanism"?

I get the impression from skimming over stuff, like on UTM in Google/Wikipedia/MIT,  that the UTM is... " It was suggested by the mathematician Turing in the 30s, and has been since then the most widely used model of computation in computability and complexity theory.""" (Wikipedia)...  it is a popular model of computation in some regions of mathematical theories.

Okay, but that means is there are also other less popular models of computation, as well as models for non-computables plus even  other kinds of models for other regions or categories of "study", for instance: models of paradigms or models of living, thinking systems.   

That is where NSD -- nested structured~duality -- comes in and probably part of why you don't see opposition.    My perspective, though, as outlined above,  is nested structured~duality  is a more suitable model for  our living, thinking being and processes, largely, because of its nested fields within nested fields organizations and physical and energetic limitations coming in from the nesting.  I don't think that system of nested resonances, or those others providing an energy-material-related representation of surroundings is computable, or, perhaps even adequately emuable, except through extensive hand-coding, in digital forms.
..snip rf 4/18/2017...


Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 19, 2018, 4:45:51 AM4/19/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Whit, Vinod,


> On 18 Apr 2018, at 15:30, Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:55:56PM +0530, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL wrote:
>> BRUNO wrote:
>>
>> ... and most people agree on 456, even if they disagree on its role in
>> metaphysics, but that is not important ...
>
> Vinod:
>
>> Why am I doubting that arithmetic reality is not a universal reality? Since the
>> basic arithmetic relation of 1+1= 2 is an assumed relation as assumed by we
>> human beings and we all agree universally on this and have accorded a universal
>> recognition to this. In nature, none of thge two objects say two apples, two
>> trees, two protons are never exactly same. Therefore 1 apple+1 apple can never
>> physically result in two apples. But still, for the sake of our mundane
>> convenience and working, we state that 1 apple +1 apple= 2 apples.
>
> In form, Bruno's argument borrows something from Descartes: The assumption
> that what we can doubt, we should doubt. Then, when we're left with some
> residue we cannot doubt, if we're lucky enough for that to be the case, that
> residue should be the foundation of our whole metaphysics.
>
> For Descartes, what he couldn't doubt is the Cognito; for Bruno, what he
> can't doubt is numbers. This is forceful in both cases; I'm convinced in
> both cases both by "I think, therefore I am," and by the apparently Platonic
> pristine realm of simple math. A number of traditions teach me to question
> the "I" of "I think," however the question of _what_ I am is separable from
> the claim _that_ I am, and I accept Descartes as only proving the latter.

I might be closer to Descartes than you seem to think. Dubito ergo Cogito (I doubt thus I think), and then (Cogito ergo sum): I think this I am.

But that proves only that my consciousness exist, and “I” is ambiguous as it can refer to my physical being (which we can still doubt) or my soul (which indeed nobody can doubt).

Now, the only thing I do not doubt is consciousness/soul. I do doubt about the number, that is even why I ask if you agree with the principle (like x + 0 = x) from which I define machine and Mechanism.

We can doubt all theories, images, visons, experiment, and even the content of all experiences. What we cannot, personally doubt, is that there is an experience, if only because doubting is an experience.

Descartes agree with this in his “Meditations”, as he conceive that he can dream of something completely mathematically weird, like a triangle with for vertices, or that 17 is not prime, etc. But that we have an experience is not doubtable.



> Vinod makes a good case for numbers as being abstracted from experience
> rather than initial facts (see also Rafael Nunez on this); still there's
> something amazing and unique in their form. Even with those qualifications,
> Descartes and Bruno make appealing, strong arguments.
>
> But that's given the background assumption that Descartes was right in his
> method of doubt. Is something being doubtable a good indicator that it
> should be thrown out as a foundational fact or claim?

Not at all. But that is what Vinod wants! Many people want that consciousness at the base because consciousness is not doubtable.
But for me, “not doubtable” does not mean “explained”, and I want an explanation of consciousness (not just mine) based on theories, that we can always doubt, but that most people agree on.

Despite any theory on the numbers *is* doubtable, I still prefer to use the number as foundations for diverses reasons. I doubt the theories, but less than any theories on some external reality which comes from extrapolation, but also, I can prove from the Mechanist assumption that numbers (or Turing equivalent) are sufficient and necessary. And then there has been the totally amazing discovery of the universal numbers, by Turing & Al.

I do not claim any truth on reality. The proof is only that IF we assume digital mechanism (which assumes number or equivalent) then the physical reality and consciousness have to arise in a very specific way from the universal numbers self-referential abilities. That makes the mechanist theory of consciousness experimentally testable (by comparing the physics that we observe with the physics in the head of all universal machines).



> Is winnowing initial
> claims down to one supposedly undoubtable thing really the way to, in the
> end, construct the truest overall theory or metaphysic?

At least the one compatible with Mechanism, taken as a sort of meta-axiom. Some could accept a digital brain transplant without realising the immaterialist consequences.



>
> As appealing as the method is, as cogent as the arguments are it can
> produce, I doubt it.

Fair enough, but note that I doubt it too. Mechanism is like the light under which you search the key. If it does not work (if the key are not there), at least we can figure that out. With vague theories, we get only infinite conversation, with few progress, as we can never clearly disprove. In science, a theory is something to be refuted.

Bruno



>
> Best,
> Whit
>

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 20, 2018, 7:34:42 AM4/20/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, 

Is "Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's cognitive system (or brain).1 In roughly equivalent terms, computationalism says that cognition is com- putation.",  what you mean by the term 'computationalism'?

If not, can you clarify, please?

Also,  "Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities is not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts."

Or, if not these,  how is it that you define your terms in your experimental design, your instance of nested structured~duality?

Thanks.

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.


Also,  

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

BMP

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 8:56:11 AM4/24/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


Knowledge is not a product of hyper-intellectual imagination. Knowledge is that which distinguishes reality from illusion for the benefit of all. — Bhagavat Purana 1.1.2 describes this as the highest truth.[1]
“The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called “sciences as one would.” For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.” — Francis Bacon, Novum Organon (1620)
The following essay presents in my humble opinion why Aristotle may not be considered a materialist. He described the appearing (apparent) world or phenomenal cosmos teleologically as intrinsically a kingdom of ends, rather than mechanistically as a chaos impelled to form a cosmos by forces under laws externally acting upon its matter or content.

A teacher writes the alphabet on a blackboard to teach it to first graders, but it does not mean that the teacher is at the level of the first graders. Aristotle taught the principles of material phenomena, but one may not thereby conclude that he was a materialist.
Modern science assumes the principle of uniformity of matter throughout the universe in the form of atoms or subatomic particles, as well as universal laws and forces. This is a convenient simplification for a finite, limited intellect, especially convenient for utilizing formal mathematical interpretations of material phenomena, but Carl Sagan sagely reminds us,

"Common sense works fine for the universe we’re used to, for time scales of decades, for a space between a tenth of a millimeter and a few thousand kilometers, and for speeds much less than the speed of light. Once we leave those domains of human experience, there’s no reason to expect the laws of nature to continue to obey our expectations, since our expectations are dependent on a limited set of experiences." [2]

Einstein also admonished,

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

As will be explained, Aristotle did not make this assumption of universal homogeneity in his concept of the cosmos.  In the English language we have one word to represent the concept of “Being,” but in German there is a distinction made between “Sein” and “Dasein,” or “Being’ and a specific kind of ‘determinate Being.’ For example, we may speak of ‘human being’ as a type of being distinguished from other kinds of being. This finer distinction is found in human culture and reason. In India the abstract advaitin philosophers consider Being to be indeterminate or homogeneously indifferent. Dvaitins and others consider it heterogeneous and differentiated, while more inclusive and comprehensive philosophers consider it both simultaneously uniform and differentiated (acintya bedha abedha).

Aristotle explained reality in its entire scope as a non-homogeneous unity or whole: as matter-form in its sublunary, and celestial regions, in which the sublunary region consisted of non-homogeneous elements such as earth, water, fire and air, while the celestial consisted of features such as thought and desire. Beyond the celestial sphere was the soul and the psychological realm, and beyond that the ultimate divine arena he called theos, theology or God. The fact that he also explained what we call the material region of things does not mean that he was therefore a materialist. It would seem that such an opinion fails to recognize either his actual explanation of matter-form [hylomorphism], or the rest of his philosophy concerning the other aspects of total reality such as soul and God, all of which constituted the heterogeneous unity-in-difference of his entire speculative system. Hegel clearly recognized this in Aristotle and defended him against the charge of materialism.[3] He also emphasized the term 'Concept' or 'Conception' [German: Begriffe] to describe at a certain level Aristotle's notion of matter-form.

The form of a thing is what it is capable of doing or being. A leg is capable of being used for standing or walking. A hand detached from the body is therefore not a hand in that sense. The form is more like the animating soul. Therefore Aristotle says that if an eye were an individual its soul would be sight. He understands matter-form as hylomorphic in its inner functional [purposeful] and not merely structural sense. This intrinsic activity (entelechia)  immediately places it outside the framework of the materialistic and mechanistic perspective.

To continue reading –

BMP

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 9:23:22 AM4/24/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Ralph Frost wrote:

>"Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, >composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities i>s not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts."

BMP: This seems to nicely point out the difference between the modern mechanistic idea of atomic/molecular matter and Aristotle's [as well as Hegel's and others] inclusion of the conceptual thinking that necessarily constitutes what we call an organism, because empirical intuition or analysis excludes the conceptual contribution involved in recognizing an organism qua organism. Aristotle's insight into 'final cause' is what Hegel and others recognize as the Concept that is invoked when recognizing an organism as an implicit unity of different members or an individual.

The next step in a progressive scientific revolution has to come to terms with the role of conceptions in a scientific understanding of things. Concepts involve the activity of thinking, and without comprehending that active nature of what we call 'things' or 'stuff' we cannot properly conceive actuality - which is essentially active and not the abstract petrified particles (particulars) which are only instantaneous moments of the actual. 

Sincerely,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 10:56:06 AM4/24/18
to 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 01:22:03PM +0000, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> The next step in a progressive scientific revolution has to come to terms with
> the role of conceptions in a scientific understanding of things. Concepts
> involve the activity of thinking, and without comprehending that active nature
> of what we call 'things' or 'stuff' we cannot properly conceive actuality -
> which is essentially active and not the abstract petrified particles
> (particulars) which are only instantaneous moments of the actual.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bhakti Madhava Puri

There are two ways of looking at ends, which may turn out (in the end) to be
unified, or may be different. I have not worked this out, so I'd like to
introduce the question to see if anyone here can suggest a resolution.

There is the end as a concept, as Bhakti Madhava Puri so clearly lays out,
but there is also end as something emotionally grasped (and thus,
motivational), as a temptation or intention -- something which pulls us
towards it, or which we pull ourselves towards (the root being 'tent' or
'pull,' as a tent's strings pull it up). Obviously when we speak of
"intentions" those can be either conceptual or emotional (or a blend), while
when we speak of "temptations" we lean more towards an emotional account.

The separation of conception and emotion is open to challenge, and has been
challenged by some. If that challenge succeeds, then my current question
dissolves. If the challenge fails, if they are truly separable things, then
my questions is: What is the relationship between the emotional ends which
pull us and the conceptual ends?

Best regards,
Whit

BMP

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 11:06:34 AM4/24/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Because sensuous intuition, sense certainty and sense perception, seem to apprehend objects or things in their immediacy, their essence and concepts are implicit only until they are thought through and articulated for consciousness - which we call comprehended or conceived. Thusly we arrive at the Conception or Concept. This does not only include their isolated elements or atoms, but the thinking process by which they are sustained as a united or dynamically integrated, organic whole.So too in feeling, or internal subjective immediacy, the concept is merely implicit and by thinking it through it becomes explicit for consciousness. Modern science as it is practiced today is blind to the role of the conceptual framework/form that determines the particularities/material content inseparable from their form, and thus deals with mere abstractions or half-truths instead of the concrete reality or organic whole. 

What we call Mind is generally understood to be the unity (or seat) of thinking, feeling, and willing, or cognition, emotion, and volition. We do not consider these isolated regions of a healthy Mind but integral parts of one reason - unless one is suffering from some form of schizophrenia or a multiple personality condition. So it is justifiable to consider thought or mind to be simplicity or explicitly present in all thinking, feeling, and willing.

Sincerely,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:54 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

Paul Werbos

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 12:43:40 PM4/24/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
 Modern science as it is practiced today is blind to the role of the conceptual framework/form that determines the particularities/material content inseparable from their form, and thus deals with mere abstractions or half-truths instead of the concrete reality or organic whole. 

That is not quite so convincing to me as other cultural slurs so prominent all over this sorry planet.

What can we say about modern religion as practiced today?

As practiced by some people it is even a worse horror than what you attribute to all of science, just as some people attribute stereotypes to races and other groups. It is a very sad commentary on those who claim to teach enlightenment that they should commit so hard to such stereotypical thinking, if it can be called thinking.  

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 3:06:43 PM4/24/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
B.M. Puri Maharaja on April 24, 2018 wrote:
>Einstein also admonished,
>
>“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
.
[S.P.] But what about the idea/concept/principle of irreducible complexity? Is there a counterpart of this idea in Vedanta?
.
For me, "everything" consists of the systems. But, a system (like the atom, the living organism, the society, the galaxy, etc.), to function, must be irreducibly complex, but not "be made as simple as possible".
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 3:55 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Why Aristotle May Not Be Considered A Materialist

BMP

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 3:06:43 PM4/24/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Namaste.

Forgive us Paul, but we pray you may consider taking a more Quaker-like, friendly and accommodating look at this. We are not talking about stereotypes, slurs or religion.

It is not enough to give a knee-jerk verbal condemnation of anyone who tries to critically explain the abstract nature of modern science. We may at least try to examine the reasoning behind it. Perhaps you are not familiar with the plethora of philosophical studies of modern science that have come to a similar conclusion about the nature of modern science. Many scientists themselves have come to the same realization and are willing to change their thinking. Of course, there are always those who will refuse to change until death do they part from us.

Descartes began with the identity of thought and being, cogito sum, but divided this original unity into a separated dualism. With the gradual neglect of the role of the subjective cognito in more modern times, (perhaps because the subjective is a much more difficult and challenging field), the preeminence of materialism took hold in men's minds. This is a onesidedness that for no real reason ignores the contribution of subjectivity. This is its blindness. It is not some mean-spirited claim about materialistic science but a conclusion that can be rationally traced in its historical development philosophically.

Career scientists are often unwilling to even look at this philosophical development objectively, making them not only blind but ignorant (ignoring it). The verbose elocution of their formal mathematical and one-sided conceptions of scientific materialism, however, fails to address what those who without prejudice see and understand what is going on in the light of reason.

The power of Cartesianism in conditioning the human mind and Western culture for the past 400 years may be difficult to transcend. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita 7.14, mama maya duratyaya - "This divine energy of Mine (Maya, illusion) is very difficult to overcome." In addition some scientists form an excessively proud group that is especially prone to thinking that they have the truth proven by their experiments - which no one else can claim. Thus they would deign to tell the saints, sages, philosophers, or those who would try to enlighten them what enlightenment means or does not mean. This has only made "science" more demanding than any religion in the history of Mankind. Don't we all [except the true believers] know that?

We must return to reason. We don't want to make mere assertoric claims without reasons.

Everyone can accept there is subject and object: 

Materialism emphasizes the objective to the exclusion of the role of the subjective.
Idealism emphasizes the subjective to the exclusion of the role of the objective.
Dualism emphasizes both subjective and objective as compartmentalized next to each other.
But
Dialectical thought does not reject either side nor isolate them from one another. The dynamic unity of thought makes possible their unity while yet preserving their difference. This idea may not be easily grasped because of the oppressiveness of one form of thinking that has dominated for years over the others. Yet once we are relieved of that kind of prejudice and habit we may find a new light, and a new day will dawn in the life of Spirit.

Sincerely,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:42 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
-- 

BMP

unread,
Apr 24, 2018, 3:30:22 PM4/24/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge,

Namaste. The idea of 'complexity' is very vague to me. Does it refer to something in our subjective intellectual limitations or does it refer to something objective in Nature? The concept of 'irreducible' is clear with respect to what we mean by 'reducible' in modern science. Mechanistic machines are reducible in the sense that we are able to build them into functioning wholes by assembling their replaceable parts or tear them down into parts and again build them up repeatedly.

The fact that this cannot be done [and has not been done] for living organisms indicates that they do not have an implicit concept or soul within such machines, but rather it remains external to them in the sentient agent who constructs or deconstructs them. Living organisms, on the other hand, do have their concept or soul within them since they are able to construct and deconstruct themselves in the process we call metabolism - consisting of anabolism and catabolism. 

Vedanta or the Sanskrit literature does contain the idea of achintya or inconceivable, but this holds in reference to ordinary understanding. What is inconceivable to the ordinary understanding is not so to the higher Reason which is personal and can grant entrance to Him/Her Self.

Sincerely,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Why Aristotle May Not Be Considered A Materialist

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Apr 25, 2018, 8:28:15 AM4/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 24, 2018 wrote:
>Career scientists are often unwilling to even look at this philosophical 
>development objectively, making them not only blind but ignorant 
>(ignoring it). The verbose elocution of their formal mathematical and
> one-sided conceptions of scientific materialism, however, fails to 
>address what those who without prejudice see and understand what is
> going on in the light of reason.
.
[S.P.] Indeed, the "verbose elocution" is the exact phrase to talk to Paul Werbos. :-)
.
Jokes apart, but I see a more serious problem here. Suppose, there are the persons who spend their evenings without electric light and only complain: "How bad it is to stay without electricity! We cannot read books in evenings, and we cannot switch on TV or computers". But, when an engineer comes and says that he has got a solution (in the form of diesel generator and incandescent lamps), the persons reply: "Or, no! This solution is too complex for us. You are using so many new terms and you talk about the principles that we are unable to comprehend! We would prefer to stay without electricity and continue complaining."
.
Yes, many modern-day philosophers complain that the objective science fails to address the subjective realm. But, when I come and say that I have got a solution (in the form of a specially developed meta-theory), the people prefer to ignore this solution and continue complaining that objective science only accepts materialism and ignores the subjective realm.
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
.
PS. It looks curious, but the word "Namaste", or "na-ma(s)-te", or "na-mas(h)-te", if being translated from Ukrainian language, verbally means "Here you are!", or "I am (or, it is) at your disposal".




From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:06 PM

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 25, 2018, 8:28:15 AM4/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

B.M. Puri Maharaja,

Thank you. Very interesting, and I would like to agree more, because Aristotle put so much emphasis on his matter-form, in all its texts on nature, that his followers forget that he was still a platonist somehow. Gerson defends that idea too, but eventually the christian “Aristotelianism” has been the base of today’s idea that there is a primary physical universe, and that is what I mean with term “Aristotle or “Aristotelian”. He coined the notion of “primary matter” to that effect. 

His metaphysics is not entirely clear.  He literally mocks Plato, to get eventually very close back to him at the end without saying. He mocks also the Pythagoreans,  but, despite he makes some valid point, he throw out the interesting insight made by Pythagorus and some of its followers.

To sum up, Aristotle was not Aristotelian, but his critics of Plato shows he was not so open-minded to the idea that the physical form comes from mathematical form, and that the fundamental reality was invisible.

I have dowloaded your paper, and might make other more precise comment later,

Best Regards,

Bruno



--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Ralph Frost

unread,
Apr 25, 2018, 11:06:38 AM4/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
The statements that I inserted in quotes  in my post about Mechanism and Computationalism are not my words or understanding (because I am still seeking a description of Mechanism as Bruno uses it), but those statements were from Googling for "mechanism philosophy", etc.   I should have made  note of that.

Ralph

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/107393448.238165.1524576123920%40mail.yahoo.com.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Apr 25, 2018, 6:01:18 PM4/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:03 PM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Namaste.

Forgive us Paul, but we pray you may consider taking a more Quaker-like, friendly and accommodating look at this. We are not talking about stereotypes, slurs or religion.

It is not enough to give a knee-jerk verbal condemnation of anyone who tries to critically explain the abstract nature of modern science. We may at least try to examine the reasoning behind it. Perhaps you are not familiar with the plethora of philosophical studies of modern science that have come to a similar conclusion about the nature of modern science. 

=========

I have read many philosophical studies both about science and about religion.

If I were to make sweeping assertions about all of modern religion as definite as what you have asserted about modern science, you would probably object to my post  in language a bit stronger than what I used just now. My views of  modern science are based not only on theories by philosophers but on direct observation of the great variety of the thing itself -- first hand observation. Without sufficient respect for first hand observation, ALL of these activities begin to lose their authenticity.

Ganesh L S

unread,
Apr 26, 2018, 6:53:26 AM4/26/18
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com

If first-hand observation is the foundation of all foundations concerning our conscious experiences, formations of meaning, understanding and explanations of universal phenomena, and if these have to be coupled with our sharing of all the above with each other and acceptance of the common ones in order to fulfill the tenets of Science, then we do have a case for 'personal science'.


Obviously, we do not yet know of ways in which one entity can go through the exact same conscious experiences of another or more.  Are there, or have there been, exceptions to this condition, any at all?


Best wishes,
LSG.
--------------------------------------------------------


From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 3:17 AM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Apr 26, 2018, 6:53:26 AM4/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Yahoogroups
-
Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 24, 2018 wrote:
>The idea of 'complexity' is very vague to me.
.
[S.P.] This is strange. Since you quote Einstein's opinion about simplicity, it means that you must have no problems with comprehending the category of simplicity, and, hence, with its opposite -- the category of complexity. 
.
But, I do not talk about simplicity or complexity. I talk about "irreducible complexity" (or, expedient complexity, or non-simplifiable complexity) as of a single two-word concept.
.
For example, if, at least, one symbol is missing in the code, the computer program will not work. If, at least, one constructive element is missing in bacteria's propelling mechanism, the bacteria will not be able to move. If, at least, one element is missing in a structure of the unicell, it will not be able to stay alive and replicate itself. If, at least, one astronomical parameter is not such as it has to be (the distance from the Sun, the tilt, the speed of rotation, presence of the radiation belt, the ratio of gases in the atmosphere, etc.) the Earth will not be able to sustain life. If, at least, one anatomical organ is missing, the bird will not be able to fly. And so on.
.
So, we deal with systems on every step, and these systems, to be functioning, must be "irreducibly complex". Hence follows the idea that evolution -- it is a transition from one irreducibly complex system to another irreducibly complex system, BUT NOT from simplicity to complexity. Both the tiniest prokaryote and the blue whale are the irreducibly complex systems. This same is true for the atoms and galaxies. 
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy
.
PS. For me, there is no sense to discuss whether Aristotle was or wasn't a materialist according to present-day understanding of the term "materialism". A materialist -- it is a researcher who is able to explain the events and processes without taking into account the activity of informational factor (or activity of consciousness).


From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:30 PM

BMP

unread,
Apr 26, 2018, 6:53:26 AM4/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Paul and other friends,

Namaste. The use of terms like 'sweeping assertions' and presumptions of how i would act are inappropriate, wholly inapplicable to me and contrary to evidence. Some simple rules of exchange for this list have been set forth, namely humility, tolerance, and respect toward others. This is expected of everyone including myself. Kindly let us remain faithful to that.

Aristotle has shown us a way to reconcile subject and object as an organic unity in his explanation of final causation or teleology. We can interpret what we today call object-subject respectively in terms of his matter-form. We have already given a clear example of what this means in terms of the metaphor of the blind men and the elephant: what they determine by mere sensation is simply the isolated material parts, but they get the whole thing wrong because they are blind to the context or form, that for the sake of which the parts exist - which is the form of the elephant. In other words, not only their being or existence, but what they exist for, the aspect of their being-for something other than themselves, is also an essential determination of what things are - of their identity.   

Here we may clearly see the defect of experience devoid of proper concept. Yes, one will confirm by experience what one presupposes a thing to be. Unwittingly, one's presumption already serves as the subjective concept of what one is experiencing. Modern scientists are unwitting doing this in this case because they do not account for  the inner concept that must necessarily accompany their intuition (sense experience) of the outer objects of the world This is basic Kantian philosophy: Concept without intuition (sense experience) is empty or an abstraction, and intuition (sense experience) without concept is blind. 

It may be that you are unfamiliar with Kant or unable to follow the logic here, but it will be to no avail to criticizer isolated points within the unified chain of reasoning, as it were, out of context.  If in a story, a phrase appears, "and she killed her husband," it would appear the wife is a murderer.  However, in the context of the story, she may have been in a tragic accident while driving the car 'and she killed her husband.' So the term 'abstract' means to isolate one portion from an actual or concrete whole, and consider its truth within that provincial perspective. Thus it is not a slur or provocation to call something abstract. It refers to a specific rational act of thought. Therefore, when something is called abstract it should be cause to consider it in its wider context.

Please notice that no one is claiming that experience is not important. Everyone has experience, but the concept with which such experiences are comprehended has all the importance in the world. 

Cheers -

Respectfully, 
B Madhava Puri







Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 6:00 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

BMP

unread,
Apr 26, 2018, 6:53:26 AM4/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge,

Namaste. When Planck 'complained' to the classical physicists, complacent with their electric light bulbs, that energy was not continuous little could they realize that such a 'complaint' would revolutionize science and technology the way it has in the last century. Today quantum scientists feeling complacent with their light emitting diodes (LEDs) may be disturbed by the'complaint' that 
modern science has failed to consider the role of the concept that the scientist contributes to the objects of science. This too is a common sense but revolutionary idea whose consequences will change science and society in ways that are imaginable today.

You have been presenting your 'solution' for a considerable amount of time here and in other forums. Yet you have been able to convince no one. You insist that others play your game on your turf without an ability to understand the ideas of others. As I have explained to you before in our exchanges, we are on different playing fields. If someone insists on only playing hockey on a hockey rink, and wants to challenge another playing soccer on a soccer field, it cannot be done while remaining in the hockey rink. One may think hockey's is the only game in town, but it's not.

Your comments regarding the Hungarian understanding of the word namaste is certainly related to the Sanskrit meaning of the term. From a book composed by Srila B.R. Sridhardeva Goswami, and translated into English entitled Prapanna-jivanamrita, subtitled Positive and Progressive Immortality, we find the following:

The cause of the tangible reality of surrender is expounded in the
Standard Codes of Religion (Smrti) –
 
"The syllable ma means 'self-asserting ego' (the misconception
of considering oneself to be a 'doer'), and the syllable na indicates its
prevention. Thus, the act of offering obeisances (namah) nullifies the
offerer's independence. The soul is naturally subordinate to the
Almighty, his intrinsic nature and innate function being servitude to
the Supreme Lord. Therefore, all actions performed thinking, 'I am
the doer,' should be utterly abandoned." -- Padma Purana


Respectfully,
B Madhava Puri







From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 8:27 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 26, 2018, 6:10:16 PM4/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 24 Apr 2018, at 15:22, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ralph Frost wrote:

>"Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, >composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities i>s not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts.”

I think this is abnormally reductionist. A machine is especially a whole bigger than its part,. Above the Turing universal threshold, (well already slightly below) it can refer to itself, and becomes non controllable. The external influence are what the universal number do to each relatively to each other. Time is an indexical, like eventually space and energy/matter.

A machine, once universal, is an unknown. It defeats *all* sufficiently effective theories.




BMP: This seems to nicely point out the difference between the modern mechanistic idea of atomic/molecular matter and Aristotle's [as well as Hegel's and others] inclusion of the conceptual thinking that necessarily constitutes what we call an organism, because empirical intuition or analysis excludes the conceptual contribution involved in recognizing an organism qua organism. Aristotle's insight into 'final cause' is what Hegel and others recognize as the Concept that is invoked when recognizing an organism as an implicit unity of different members or an individual.

The next step in a progressive scientific revolution has to come to terms with the role of conceptions in a scientific understanding of things. Concepts involve the activity of thinking, and without comprehending that active nature of what we call 'things' or 'stuff' we cannot properly conceive actuality - which is essentially active and not the abstract petrified particles (particulars) which are only instantaneous moments of the actual. 

I am rather OK. With mechanism, particles are clutter of relative localised summary of histories, which are emerging from a sort of percolation on all computations in whatever Turing-complete base theory. It is a consciousness and a consciousness flux, seen in some ways, mixing (dangerously) the unique first person view and the infinitely many third person views.

To study physics for learning the soul is a bit like trying to understand how Deep Blue won Chess by looking at the transistors of its (physical) computer. 

Soul ara abstract relation between truth and machine/number, through complex relations, but the brain/universal number makes them relatively easy from the first person point of view, which never leave its connection with (some) truth.

Bruno



Sincerely,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

Bruno, 

Is "Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's cognitive system (or brain).1 In roughly equivalent terms, computationalism says that cognition is com- putation.",  what you mean by the term 'computationalism'?

If not, can you clarify, please?

Also,  "Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities is not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts."

Or, if not these,  how is it that you define your terms in your experimental design, your instance of nested structured~duality?

Thanks.

Best regards, 
Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.



--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Apr 26, 2018, 6:45:48 PM4/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:50 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Paul and other friends,

Namaste. The use of terms like 'sweeping assertions' and presumptions of how i would act are inappropriate, wholly inapplicable to me and contrary to evidence. Some simple rules of exchange for this list have been set forth, namely humility, tolerance, and respect toward others. This is expected of everyone including myself. Kindly let us remain faithful to that.
 
It may be that you are unfamiliar with Kant or unable to follow the logic here,

As for logic, the contradiction between the two previous paragraphs should be obvious to anyone. 

I see little sign of anyone on this thread grasping the apriori synthetic. 

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Apr 27, 2018, 5:42:11 AM4/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Yahoogroups
-
Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 26, 2018 wrote:
>You have been presenting your 'solution' for a considerable amount of
> time here and in other forums. Yet you have been able to convince no 
>one. 
.
[S.P.] Yes, I have not found a person who would understand that the complex problems require complex solutions. Everybody prefers to look for keys under the lantern post of own belief system and correspondent scientific discipline, would it be Physics, Neurophysiology or Psychology. My solution is of the class "meta-theory+applied theory", whereas the others think that to account for consciousness it is sufficient just to define it somehow. This is the same as to believe that to reach the Moon it is sufficient just to climb up the nearest mountain.
.
[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:
>You insist that others play your game on your turf without an 
>ability to understand the ideas of others. As I have explained to you 
>before in our exchanges, we are on different playing fields.
.
[S.P.] If you are the subject of cognitive activity and your consciousness produces intellectual products like the elements of subjective experience, thoughts, ideas, dreams, feelings, etc., then you are on my field. The case is that my applied theory of appearance, development and compatibility of intellectual products (or the Applied ADC Theory for short, officially published yet in 2013) asserts that whatever intellectual product your consciousness produces, it will necessary be of one of four possible levels:
.
1) the D-level -- the level of simple description, observation, and collection of raw experimental data;
2) the GS-level -- the level of generalization and systematization of observations and research data and formulating the hypotheses;
3) the AT-level -- the level of the applied theory which explains and predicts something, and which is testable, verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable, etc., and
4) the MT-level -- the level of a meta-theory by which I mean the most general assertions about our Reality, various postulates, general laws and principles, belief systems, personal world-views, etc.
.
Now then, the Applied ADC Theory takes any intellectual product as its object of study (just like Physics takes any physical event or process as its own object of study), and it is unique -- it does not have any alternatives/counterparts in the World. So, if you use your consciousness to form your version of Phenomenal Reality (as a model of Noumenal Reality or a picture of the outer world), then you are already ON MY FIELD.
.
[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:
> Your comments regarding the Hungarian understanding of the word
> namaste is certainly related to the Sanskrit meaning of the term.
.
[S.P.] Sorry, but I have been talking about Ukrainian (but not Hungarian) language. If, for you, there is no difference between the two, then it can't be helped. The complex word "na-ma(s)-te", or "na-mas(h)-te" consists of the following words:
1) "na" which means "take (this)", or "I give this to you";
2) "ma" or "mas(h) which means "to possess", or "to have";
3) "te" which means "you", "you and me", or "together".
.
For example, the Ukrainian word "znay-te" means "I would like you to know this as well or to be informed about this as well". The word "hodim-te" means "Let us go". And so on. 
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:52 PM

BMP

unread,
Apr 27, 2018, 5:42:11 AM4/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ganesh

Namaste. You may not be addressing this question to me. If I may reply, one of the most obvious responses would be the role of the first person plural, the We, in the what reflects a more genuine conception of knowledge or 'cognition' in which the prefix 'co' indicates a communitive 'gnosis' which is overlooked in the solipsistic misconception of knowledge that is generally accepted today. Of course, the We includes the I, but in what Hegel understood as a unity in difference of the 'I that is We' and the 'We that is I.'  Little has been written about this, but you can find the introduction to it in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

Respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri

From: Ganesh L S <l...@iitm.ac.in>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:52 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

BMP

unread,
Apr 27, 2018, 5:42:11 AM4/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Paul and friends

Namaste. 

Concerning the exchange:

BMP It may be that you are unfamiliar with Kant or unable to follow the logic here,
PW: As for logic, the contradiction between the two previous paragraphs should be obvious to anyone. 

Reply:
You are mistaken. There is no disrespect intended at all.  The word 'may' in my sentence indicates a query - if you understand the necessary relation between concept and its object that is of central importance to Kant, then why would you take offense to the consideration that only one side of that relationship without the other would be an abstraction from their integral unity? Or that it would be a 'sweeping generalization.? 

Then you write:

PW: I see little sign of anyone on this thread grasping the apriori synthetic

Reply: 

Your statement here seems to recognize the significance of the unity of concept and object, or what Kant called the a prior synthetic unity of knowledge,  but a failure to recognize that it is the a priori unity of thought and being that has been mentioned numerous times on this list as Descartes' original insight into the "I" as the cogito sum. This has been the whole starting point of the argument presented thus far. Perhaps I did not make it clear since I did not use Kant's phrase 'a priori synthesis' - but that is what the unity or synthesis of thought and being, or concept and object means. So we will take it as destined that you should bring it up again for re-emphasis and clarification, for which we thank you.   

The next thing to realize is that it was not only Descartes, who may have been the first in the period of modernity to come to the realization of the unity of thought and being (although this was already presumed as a matter of fact in the ancient world), and his consequent separation of this original (a priori) unity (synthesis), but Kant did essentially the same thing while adding a whole lot more philosophical detail about the categories and the relation of concept to its object. Let us divide this rather long sentence into two:

Descartes' cogito sum recognized the original unity of thinking and being as the certainty of the  "I", but later separated the two terms into the immediacy of subjective cognition and objective or extended matter.

Kant's unity of apperception or the transcendental 'I' represented the apriori synthesis or unity of the concept and its object (which is a further refinement of thought and being in terms of truth rather than certainty) but then held the two as separated subjective concept (comprehension) and objective (uncomprehended) thing-in-itself.

The parallel should be clear. Modern science has developed from the branch of Cartesian matter as that which appears as extensional in form in space. For Descartes matter and space were coextensive. That was later separated into a more abstract matter conjoined to an abstract space by the time it got into Newton's hands (mind).

This is a very brief, bare and succinct summary of the basics, the details and further development are what makes it extremely valuable and essential to clear up the mass of confusion that a science too negligent about philosophy has created (the late Hawking even suggested that philosophy be abandoned in lieu of science!). Without understanding how the present intellectual stance of science was reached, in my humble opinion,  it will not be possible to understand consciousness at all. 

.Respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri






Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:45 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

BMP

unread,
Apr 27, 2018, 5:42:11 AM4/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge,

Namaste. The philosophical concept of simplicity is that which is elemental and cannot be reduced to or explained by anything other than itself. For example, thought is thought, being is being.  Neither can be explained by anything other than themselves. This infers that the opposite of simple, is not what is complex, but what is compound and can be reduced to or explained by its different elements. .

You have not addressed my point about the definition of complexity: does it refer to what is difficult for a limited mind to understand, or does it have some objective meaning. In my understanding, complexity is not the opposite of simplicity.

So far as the idea of 'irreducible complexity' as the Christian mathematician Bill Dembski presents it, supported by the work of biologist Michael Behe, their approach ignores what seems to me,  Aristotle's much simpler and more intuitive teleological conception of living organisms. But I don't take their informational approach very seriously because the term 'information' leaves much to be desired as far as clarity of its concept is concerned. The idea of information infers the element of consciousness already within it. Thus it cannot serve to explain what it already presumes.

Considering my understanding of the concept of simplicity, the word "irreducible"  is already contained within the simple which cannot be reduced to anything other than itself. Therefore if we were to use the word irreducible it would infer the pleonasm 'irreducible simplicity' not 'irreducible complexity.' An entity that was compounded out of more than one simple element but which was an irreducible unity in which the simple elements could not be separated without destroying the entity would be an example of a teleological system. By calling it merely complex, nothing is understood thereby of its actual nature, which can be explained.

That is my view.

Respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri



From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Yahoogroups <jcs-o...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:52 AM
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Apr 27, 2018, 3:11:51 PM4/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:38 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Paul and friends

Namaste. 

Concerning the exchange:

BMP It may be that you are unfamiliar with Kant or unable to follow the logic here,
PW: As for logic, the contradiction between the two previous paragraphs should be obvious to anyone. 

Reply:
You are mistaken. There is no disrespect intended at all.  The word 'may' in my sentence indicates a query

Ah. It may be that you are unfamiliar with the full meaning of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason?

That was Einstein's favorite book at one time, according to some sources I have read and heard...  

but of course Einstein was a modern scientist, and you have been clear about your view of all modern science. 

I have been deeply disappointed by the lack of authentic appreciation of that particular core insight of Kant
in many of these discussions. 

Ganesh L S

unread,
Apr 28, 2018, 6:28:47 AM4/28/18
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com

Thank you for your observations, Puri Maharajaji.  Isn't it true that we are searching for 'commonality' of truth through both modes, viz., 'I that is We', and 'We that is I'?  Even then, don't we have a case for 'personal Science', a integrated set of direct conscious experiences that only each individual has access to and goes through completely exclusive of others?  Commonality can then be had if and only if the individually experienced truths are shared, experimented with by others individually, verified and accepted.

​
Best wishes,
LSG.
--------------------------------------------------------


From: 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:25 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Apr 28, 2018, 6:28:47 AM4/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
If I may join, Id like to say that this definition of simple  agrees with Rose 's definition, but only in the sense that a reduction is simple and unnatural, because  nature is complex while simple views of it are part of that complexity.

In that view what you propose is quite confusing. Reduction to simple substances or concepts (either way) has been shown to be an incomplete way of representing nature. Irreducible complexity is correct, in my view, meaning a more explanatory and parsimonious view of nature for science. I demonstrate that in my papers.  But I also do not agree with Behe's early explanations and the assumptions or agenda of the IDT community. Being fundamentally complex nature itself is intelligent and can accomplish intelligent design. IDT is incorrect, in my opinion, in proposing a separate external "designer". I think both science and deep spiritual inquiry tell us that the only way to get a good model of complex nature is to assume that the designer is internal, with external implications. Relational complexity as a foundation allows for internal intelligent process, which naturally will appear to be intelligent.

A clear definition of information as the 'substance' of intelligence and perhaps the manifestation of consciousness is easy in relational complexity. It is one system forming or bounding the dynamics of another according to the bounding system's formal rules. Thus the connection is between inverse categories one representing a system's measurable aspects and the other applying a system's rules of existence. Such rules regulate and organize system dynamics in potentially novel ways. Information relating inverse categories is essentially the functor relation in category theory.

Aristotle had much of this right, but his philosophy was part of the era where the full relational view was being lost and replaced by hierarchical ideas, breaking the ancient causal cycle. Still, put Aristotle's four causes into a cycle and you get back to the ancient holism.

John

BMP

unread,
Apr 28, 2018, 8:12:18 AM4/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge,

Namaste. In two places in your reply to me you mention:

> If you are the subject of cognitive activity and your consciousness produces intellectual products

and

> if you use your consciousness to form your version of Phenomenal Reality (as a model of Noumenal Reality or a picture of the outer world), then you are already ON MY FIELD.

Reply

Here, the difference between playing fields is clearly visible to me, but invisible to you.

You are operating within the field of cognitive activity and consciousness, while unconscious of the fact that 'you' are behind all that. The use of the possessive pronoun 'your' as in 'your consciousness produces' - a distinction is made between consciousness and the possessor of it. As soon as the idea that 'you use your consciousness to form' consciousness becomes the instrument of 'you' and not the  producer of intellectual products. 

Thus your game is played only on the field of consciousness. The field I am playing in has consciousness only as a subdomain and is a field that extends beyond that to the 'you' and higher that is well beyond 'you' and 'us' and consciousness. That is inconceivable to you right now, but I suggest that if you are willing to study the works of Kant and Hegel you may be able to get a glimpse of the field that lies beyond your dreams. [You may have heard of the Field of Dreams, but there is a field beyond that.]

The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are already accepted by many. What you are doing is very admirable, interesting and at least presented in an original way. If you want to be accepted more widely, it would probably be a good idea to study what others before you have already understood about the philosophy of Mind and Spirit, and try to find the correlation between their language and yours. That may help not only to bring your ideas more in line with what many are already familiar, and therefore make it much more understandable, but perhaps even get you beyond that stage.

Good wishes.

Respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Yahoogroups <jcs-o...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 5:41 AM
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Apr 28, 2018, 8:15:00 AM4/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:06 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
B.M. Puri Maharaja on April 24, 2018 wrote:
>Einstein also admonished,
>
>“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

This is certainly a very valid and important quote from Einstein. Einstein was thinking then about the challenge of understanding the underlying, deepest laws of physics.
 
[S.P.] But what about the idea/concept/principle of irreducible complexity? Is there a counterpart of this idea in Vedanta?

I suspect that people who claim to speak for all of vedanta, all of science and all of German philosophy  are actually rather varied among themselves in what they read into the Vedas (just as many people read different things into the Christian bibles.)

For hard core realists, like Einstein, most of the complexity we deal with is a complex web of emergent phenomena. The sheer beauty of simple dynamics or axioms leading to a vast complexity of what follows from them is a very deep part of our own culture.

However -- is general relativity simple? Are the neural network designs which allow general learning in the cerebral cortex simple? 
The word "simple" means different things to different people, and even in hard core neural network theory (and in the philosophy of Emmanuel Kant), it is understood how different measures of complexity really matter. 

From your viewpoint, the "simple" elegant equation of general relativity, basically R=T (no subscripts in email!!), is not so simple, because R and T require definition, and that assumes the continuum hypothesis and so on. 

.
For me, "everything" consists of the systems. But, a system (like the atom, the living organism, the society, the galaxy, etc.), to function, must be irreducibly complex, but not "be made as simple as possible".
.

Einstein would certainly not deny the existence or importance of atoms!  But to describe them as systems... would he use first grade quantum mechanics? In his case, that's a very tricky question, beyond the scope of this list.

NYIKOS, PETER

unread,
Apr 28, 2018, 5:44:35 PM4/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bhakti,

From what you write below, it seems that I occupy a position midway between Serge and yourself. I go beyond consciousness to the "me" [and, by extension, to the you] that IS conscious. But I see no reason to go beyond myself to a "super-consciousness" that somehow incorporates our individual consciousness. And so, while I wholeheartedly go with the first three steps of the Chandogya Upanishad, I have reservations about parts of the fourth and final step, and so too (if I read him correctly many years ago) did Ramanuja.

Hume, of course, stoutly opposed the idea of a "me" behind the stream of his consciousness, unaware that he was looking in the wrong place for himself. To put a Humean twist on a Hindu saying which long predated Hume: your eye never catches itself in the act of seeing.

The "field" of which you speak is  in the realm of mystical experience, and if you think it can be rationally explained, I would love to hear from you about that. 

Speaking of Hegel -- William James for a brief time, under the influence of nitrous oxide, had a mystical experience that caused him to temporarily become convinced that Hegel was right and that all his brilliant arguments against Hegel were wrong. But when the gas wore off, the old arguments took on a new strength because he felt he had experienced what was behind so much of Hegel's writing -- and it had nothing to do with reasoning.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics        
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

From: 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 8:10 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

Dear Serge,

BMP

unread,
Apr 29, 2018, 4:14:58 AM4/29/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Prof. Peter Nyikos,

Namaste. It is very nice to hear from you. In order to explore what there is beyond the "I" or ego, we can make use of philosophy and logic, and we can also get some insight using the writings of the ancients who directly experienced these things - called by us scripture, because of the highest truth contained in and preserved by them.

So, for instance, in the Bhagavad-gita 7.5, along with many other verses in this book,  gives a concise statement of the situation where Krishna says to Arjuna, ". . .  superior to this material nature is My marginal potency, comprised of the individual souls. . ." In the Samkhya philosophy of the Gita, material nature consists of both world and mind. Thus soul or atma is superior to that.

Furthermore, in Gita 13.23,Krishna explains, "The Supreme Person [purusham param]—the witness, sanctioner, support, guardian, and almighty Lord within this body, is known as Paramåtman, the Supersoul."

Then of course, beyond even Paramatma there is a still more superior existence called Bhagavan, or Krishna who is describing to Arjuna about Paramatma and everything else.

Superiority or hierarchy should not be considered in a linear sense. We should know from philosophy that every concept consists of three features, universal, particular and singular (or individual). For example, 'tree' is a concept that refers to a particular tree, as much as to all trees.  It is thus simultaneously particular and universal. The individual is the [un-dividable] unity of these two. So this cypress standing over here is both a tree in the universal sense, and a particular type being cypress, indivisibly united in one. 

Likewise, atma is one of many, thus it is a particular that is also a concept that universally [Brahman] refers to all atma-Paramatma localizations. The in-divisible unity of the two is the Individual called God or more properly Bhagavan. The permeation of the universal, Brahman, in the particular atma is called Paramatma. The atma has no independent identity of its own.

HTH

Humbly and respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri

 





 



From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 5:43 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Apr 29, 2018, 4:14:58 AM4/29/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Yahoogroups
-
Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 27, 2018 wrote:
>You have not addressed my point about the definition of complexity:
> does it refer to what is difficult for a limited mind to understand, or 
>does it have some objective meaning. In my understanding, 
>complexity is not the opposite of simplicity.
.
[S.P.] The irony is that your "point about the definition of complexity" is out of context at all. What I argue is that the categories of "simplicity" and "complexity", to make sense, must go in pairs -- they have no sense one without the other. In so doing, one and the same object, event, process, or idea may be simple (or too simple) for one person, and be complex (or too complex) for another person. So, the objective criteria for simplicity and complexity are absent.
.
[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:
>Considering my understanding of the concept of simplicity, the
> word "irreducible"  is already contained within the simple which 
>cannot be reduced to anything other than itself.
.
[S.P.] For me, you make a fatal mistake in your reasoning here. Please, open your mind and try to see my point. I say that the concept "irreducible complexity" (or expedient complexity, or non-simplifiable complexity) should be treated as a ONE single concept -- it is incorrect to tear it apart into two concepts like "irreducible" and "complexity".
.
The objective criterion for defining "irreducible complexity" does exist and it is the requirement of functionality. For example, the living organism can be formalized as the irreducibly complex system. For it to be functioning, it must be such as it is -- it cannot be made simpler or more complex. If we remove some element from that system or add some new element to it, the system will cease to be functioning. The Earth can be formalized as the irreducibly complex system as well: if we remove some element from that system or add some new element to it, the system will cease to be functioning -- it will cease to be life-sustaining.
.
And my second argument is that evolution -- it is not a transition from simplicity to complexity, but a transition from one irreducibly complex system to another irreducibly complex system. From this follows directly the idea that life comes from life. To the point, the appearance of life should not be considered as an assemblage of something complex from simple parts. Instead, it should be considered as a transition from one irreducibly complex system with high value of its entropic characteristic to another irreducibly complex system with sufficiently low value of its entropic characteristic.   
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 12:41 PM

BMP

unread,
Apr 29, 2018, 4:14:58 AM4/29/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear  Dr John Kineman,

Namaste. 

You write:
> a reduction is simple and unnatural, because  nature is complex while simple views of it are part of that complexity.

Reply
Einstein mentions the we should aim to be as simple as possible and but not simpler. What it seems to me you are stating is that simple is an unnatural (I would call abstract) reduction of what is naturally complex. If that is the case then what does he mean by adding 'not simpler." What would that correspond to in your view?

From my perspective simple means that which cannot retain its identity if it is reduced beyond iits minimal self. Going beyond or reducing that minimal self is what we may call 'too simple' or 'simpler.' 

Furthermore no one has addressed the question that I posed: does 'complexity' have an epistemological or ontological significance? In other words, does nature for us, or our knowledge of nature, present some difficulty in our understanding of it, so we call it complex? Or does nature in itself exist in some way that are complex, as distinguished from other natural existences that are not complex?

Whatever is internally intelligent in nature should be intelligible to us, so in that sense it may not be considered complex. However, when we come to consider a junk pile [no intelligence] still it would seem to me more complex to discover how it was put together than anything arranged by an intelligent person. This is cause for confusion, it seems to me. So I avoid dealing with that term altogether and prefer simplicity and compound instead.

A teleological whole may have many parts or members that are unified or held together by an internal bond, purpose or reason. This individual [literally, un-dividable] whole is considered simple because it cannot be reduced any further without breaking the teleological unity  thereby disrupting it as a unified whole or individual.  Its soul or inner purpose is lost by analyzing or taking it apart. In that sense we can say that its soul is simple, not compounded out of any other parts. 

I know you want to keep complexity because you have some hyper intellectual mathematical paraphernalia that you say can deal with that idea. However, for me the soul is much easier to understand as the inner teleological purpose than some mathematical formalism which rapidly becomes totally mysterious to me.  Spirit I can understand, but all the hyper intellectual acrobatics mystifies me. There is a very serious problem with mathematics and it applicability to nature that has not been taken very seriously by contemporary scientists.. Again, this harks back to Kant and the relation between concept and its object or reality.

Humbly and respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri 
[the use of Dr Puri is ok. My apologies for not answering you other email message]




From: John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 6:27 AM

BMP

unread,
Apr 29, 2018, 4:14:58 AM4/29/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ganesh ji

Namaste. We tend to think in terms of exclusivity, but that is the nature of what we call understanding. or intellect.  In Western philosophy Kant pointed out the distinction between understanding [Ger. Verstand] and reason [Ger. Vernunft]. Basically, understanding [intellect] is predicational, judgmental thinking. Reason is syllogistic thinking - 'if-this-and-that-then.'  So at one level the particular person is distinct from all others, having separate experiences and so on, yet at the same time there is a universality or sameness because every person is a person, different from all others. What this is telling us is that, paradoxically, is that each person as different from all others, is the sameness of each person with the others. In other words, it is not merely uniqueness but also commonality that both characterize everyone.

Humbly and respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: Ganesh L S <l...@iitm.ac.in>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 6:27 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

BMP

unread,
Apr 29, 2018, 4:14:58 AM4/29/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Paul

Namaste.

Your write:
>For hard core realists, like Einstein

Not sure what you understand by that, but Einstein has written things like: 

"How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"

One may use the words 'emergent' or 'evolved' or 'complex' without knowing the first thing about what they really mean. I would call that mysticism, but there is something that is not mysterious and all can come to understand, and that is called spirit. 

Einstein has also stated:

"There are only two ways to live your life: as though nothing is a miracle, or as though everything is a miracle."

This tells me that he was not merely a hard core realist, in the sense that he believed in hard, lifeless, loveless, impersonal substance as foundational reality. In fact he claimed that he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza was the philosopher of substance, which he defined as causa sui, or cause of itself. That which has no other cause of its existence other than itself - that is substance. And that is also what philosophers call God. 

Now, one may say that God, or substance as thus defined, is the most complex, but in my understanding it would be considered simple, because it does not involve a compound with anything other than itself. For Aristotle, this pure identity with itself is conceived as Thought, noesis, and thinking is the  engagement of thought with itself alone. Hegel emphasized that this is the same with 'to Be' and Being, and thus Being and Thought are not as different as might immediately be presumed. Thus Hegel can show that substance is also subject, and thus subject is the foundational substance of reality. This has the result of a conception of reality that gets us past the hard, lifeless, loveless 'reality' of the impersonalists, materialists, and so on.

Humbly and respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri






Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 8:14 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Why Aristotle May Not Be Considered A Materialist
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 29, 2018, 9:56:33 AM4/29/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Ralph,


On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:58, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

The statements that I inserted in quotes  in my post about Mechanism and Computationalism are not my words or understanding (because I am still seeking a description of Mechanism as Bruno uses it), but those statements were from Googling for "mechanism philosophy", etc.   I should have made  note of that.

Ralph

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 9:22 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Ralph Frost wrote:

>"Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, >composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other.

What could that mean? On the contrary, a machine function only through the intrinsic relation between the parts.

Beware the net on Mechanism. Mechanism is misused by many materialist to put the mind-body under the rug, but they ignore completely what is a digital machine, or what is a computation, and usually make some assumption (like weak materialism) which I can explain is incompatible with Digital Mechanism. 

Bruno



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

BMP

unread,
Apr 30, 2018, 6:18:50 AM4/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge

Namaste. I hope you understand that i am not disagreeing with you. I am simply expressing how I understand the same situation with different words. Mainly replacing 'complexity' with a term more meaningful to me, such as compound vs. simple. The word 'complexity'  actually means 'com' - together and 'plex' means 'braided' or 'entwined.'  With the idea of 'irreducible complexity' you are seem to be saying that there may be two kinds of complexity that are possible, viz. complexes that can be reduced and those that can't: 'reducible complexity' and 'irreducible complexity.'

In other words, a concept is required that implies something that is so tightly integrated that it forms an indivisible unity, which cannot be separated into it its component parts without destroying the entity (literally, unified being). This concept cannot be 'complexity' because, as you may recognize now there are two types of complexity possible. The word 'irreducible' has to be added to 'complexity' in order to make clear the kind of indissoluble unity of components that is intended. 

But if you, as you say "open your mind and try to see my point' you may realize that the word 'irreducible' says it all, i.e. that something is not expressible in terms of its separated components. Whether we call that something a complex or a compound does not really make a difference. The whole idea rests on it being an irreducible unity, which I understand as what philosophy means by the word 'simple.' 

Generally, we may think 'simple' means 'only one thing,' as if there were no compound or complex involved at all. However, by speaking about a unity - in which the idea of 'union' is implied, then there must also be some components that are being united to make it a union or unity. However, the unity or union, although it unites different components,  originally does not and cannot come about by some combination of those parts. Therefore it also cannot be taken apart and reassembled to make a whole unit again. This is what we mean by its irreducibility. 

For example, a magnet has a north pole-south pole distinction within it although the poles cannot be separated from one another, and it is not made by joining a north pole together with a south pole. In the same way a living entity - a cell  - is not made by joining its constituents together, nor can it survive by separating its constituents and reassembling them. Even the flagellum of bacteria cannot be constructed by joining its molecular parts together intentionally, what to speak of having formed unintentionally or randomly. 

If we allow nature to inform our scientific understanding of itself, rather than let our intellectual presumptions of nature guide us  - rather than 'science as we would' instead of science of nature as it is (as Francis Bacon put it)  we would accept the law of bio-genesis, life comes from life, that Nature reveals to us, rather than the imposed materialistic ideology of abio-genesis, which has never been observed. 

When you write: "The objective criterion for defining "irreducible complexity" does exist and it is the requirement of functionality."

I agree, and this functionality of living things is what is meant by their teleological nature. Modern science ignores the contribution of function to the essence of things. They consider it something external to the nature of things. But this is true only for material things as far as their external utility is concerned. Living organisms have an internal teleology or purpose. They cannot be treated like things, or conceived of in that way. Everyone knows that - hopefully. So living organisms are a different type of being than non living things. A canon ball can be propelled into the air and its trajectory can be calculated. But a bird propelled into the air may fly away in any unpredictable direction, because it possess its own internal purpose/direction - free will.

Evolution implies a mechanistic process of development, but no living entity on Earth is formed by such a process. They all form by some type of embryo-genesis, life from life. They grow and develop internally by a process of inner differentiation, not by outer or external accumulation. The concepts of evolution and emergence as used by materialistic scientists belongs to what I consider mysticism. Rather than contemplate the possible spiritual nature of reality, in my opinion they have embraced mysterianism.

Humbly and respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Yahoogroups <jcs-o...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 4:13 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Why Aristotle May Not Be Considered A Materialist

-

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Apr 30, 2018, 10:35:09 AM4/30/18
to Online Sadhu Sanga
-


Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 28, 2018 wrote:
>The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are 
>already accepted by many.
.
[S.P.] Did these "great philosophers" solve the problem of consciousness? No? Then I have no interest in their views. I, myself, am a self-sufficient thinker. I produce a new knowledge which cannot be found in the libraries. I do have my own original solution and I see the sense of discussing anything only with other thinkers who also have got their solutions. If I use the concept of the Earth as a globe, I have no interest to discuss the ideas like "the flat Earth". I have no interest to publish my papers, say, in the Journal of Consciousness Studies or to participate in Tucson Conferences where people are discussing/complaining why they cannot solve what they call the "hard problem of consciousness".
.
So, I have constructed the Applied ADC Theory (for details, scroll this thread down). Being an applied theory itself, it can be tested/falsified. This is what I take an interest in, and what I would like to discuss. The Applied ADC Theory predicts that whatever intellectual product a subject of cognitive activity constructs, it will necessary be of one of four possible levels -- of the D-level, GS-level, AT-level, or MT-level.
.
For example, if you formulate an assertion that there is a pillar in Delhi of 7.21 m high made of 99,9...% iron and that it is rust-resistant, you create the D-level intellectual product: you describe the object and provide the raw experimental findings -- the results of measurements and chemical analyses. 
.
If you say that there are other iron poles and other artefacts in India and throughout the World with similar physical/chemical properties, and you hypothesize that, maybe, there was a very technologically developed tradition of metal manufacturing two millennia ago, you, thereby, create the GS-level intellectual product: you consider many objects, generalize and systematize the collected data and formulate a certain hypothesis based on the available firmly established facts. By the way, the same facts may be generalized and systematized in different ways, so that we may have much differing hypotheses.
.
If you say that the pillars and other artefacts of such physical properties can be produced only in the oxygen-free environment (say, in outer space), you, thereby, create the AT-level intellectual product: you explain something and predict something. To test your statement, we would have to move the steel-making plant into space and to try to produce the iron of certain purity.
.
If you say that you believe that the pillar of Dehli and similar artefacts were produced by the gods from Sirius, you, thereby, create the MT-level intellectual product: you just announce your beliefs/suppositions/postulates/axioms, which, by definition, require no proofs -- the others may either adopt your beliefs or reject them.
.
So, to test/falsify my Applied ADC Theory, you have to formulate an assertion which would not belong to any of the mentioned above four levels of intellectual products. But, if you fail to formulate such an assertion, this would mean that my Applied ADC Theory is true.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 3:11 PM

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Apr 30, 2018, 11:37:36 AM4/30/18
to 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:54:36AM +0000, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 28, 2018 wrote:
> >The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are
> >already accepted by many.
> .
> [S.P.] Did these "great philosophers" solve the problem of consciousness? No?
> Then I have no interest in their views. I, myself, am a self-sufficient
> thinker. I produce a new knowledge which cannot be found in the libraries.

Serge,

The thing about true solutions, and candidates for true solutions, is they
can be verified by other objective observers. The first step is there has to
be a recognized problem to be solved. The second step is the solution needs
to be provide in the form a a recipe which, when well-executed by an
independent actor, is demonstrated to work.

Surely one of the aspects of consciousness is our creativity. But what we
create only qualifies as _significant_ "new knowledge" if it leads to a
generally recognized use. In watching your exchanges here and elsewhere for
months now, I've noticed no one congratulating you on useful contributions.
If no one has a use for your claims, they're literally useless.

It may be everyone here is too simple-minded to ever receive your gift.
Alternately, you may only ever be able to convince yourself that you've even
got a good formulation of a problem at hand, let alone its solution.

Let's start with something modest. What is your formulation of what you call
"the problem of consciousness"?

I know your frustration. I've got pet ideas too. But I've never claimed to
be beyond the great philosophers.

Regards,
Whit

Joan Walton

unread,
Apr 30, 2018, 11:37:36 AM4/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge

My statement would be: "Often, when in a quiet place, and I retreat deep into myself, I have an experience which is beyond my power to explain accurately in words; the closest I can get is that I experience a sense of pure love which is infinite and eternal".  

It seems that you are not interested in this, because it is a personal experience (which I know many others share so there is an intersubjective validation of it); but because I cannot articulate it intellectually in a way that others can 'objectively' prove / disprove, it does not fit into one of your four categories?  Or it may be that it is your 4th category, because of your insistence on intellectual proof?

It is the choice of each of us as to what they accept as valid knowledge.  For me, the experience I have described, and the tacit knowledge that provides for me in relation to the nature of reality (and indeed what it tells me about the nature of consciousness which is a great interest of mine), is far more powerful and real, and in research terms, a significant source of useful data, than any intellectual explanation or analysis of that experience ( though that also does have a place).  

It seems to me that if  you are interested only in talking to people about your particular theory, you are missing out on a hugely rich and rewarding dimension of life. I don't accept that you have achieved any useful solution at all.  Hence our lack of interest in talking to each other is presumably mutual.  

Best wishes

Joan 

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:54 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-


Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 28, 2018 wrote:
>The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are 
>already accepted by many.
.
[S.P.] Did these "great philosophers" solve the problem of consciousness? No? Then I have no interest in their views. I, myself, am a self-sufficient thinker. I produce a new knowledge which cannot be found in the libraries. I do have my own original solution and I see the sense of discussing anything only with other thinkers who also have got their solutions. If I use the concept of the Earth as a globe, I have no interest to discuss the ideas like "the flat Earth". I have no interest to publish my papers, say, in the Journal of Consciousness Studies or to participate in Tucson Conferences where people are discussing/complaining why they cannot solve what they call the "hard problem of consciousness".
.
So, I have constructed the Applied ADC Theory (for details, scroll this thread down). Being an applied theory itself, it can be tested/falsified. This is what I take an interest in, and what I would like to discuss. The Applied ADC Theory predicts that whatever intellectual product a subject of cognitive activity constructs, it will necessary be of one of four possible levels -- of the D-level, GS-level, AT-level, or MT-level.
.
For example, if you formulate an assertion that there is a pillar in Delhi of 7.21 m high made of 99,9...% iron and that it is rust-resistant, you create the D-level intellectual product: you describe the object and provide the raw experimental findings -- the results of measurements and chemical analyses. 
.
If you say that there are other iron poles and other artefacts in India and throughout the World with similar physical/chemical properties, and you hypothesize that, maybe, there was a very technologically developed tradition of metal manufacturing two millennia ago, you, thereby, create the GS-level intellectual product: you consider many objects, generalize and systematize the collected data and formulate a certain hypothesis based on the available firmly established facts. By the way, the same facts may be generalized and systematized in different ways, so that we may have much differing hypotheses.
.
If you say that the pillars and other artefacts of such physical properties can be produced only in the oxygen-free environment (say, in outer space), you, thereby, create the AT-level intellectual product: you explain something and predict something. To test your statement, we would have to move the steel-making plant into space and to try to produce the iron of certain purity.
.
If you say that you believe that the pillar of Dehli and similar artefacts were produced by the gods from Sirius, you, thereby, create the MT-level intellectual product: you just announce your beliefs/suppositions/postulates/axioms, which, by definition, require no proofs -- the others may either adopt your beliefs or reject them.
.
So, to test/falsify my Applied ADC Theory, you have to formulate an assertion which would not belong to any of the mentioned above four levels of intellectual products. But, if you fail to formulate such an assertion, this would mean that my Applied ADC Theory is true.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 3:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
Dear Serge,

Namaste. In two places in your reply to me you mention:

> If you are the subject of cognitive activity and your consciousness produces intellectual products

and

> if you use your consciousness to form your version of Phenomenal Reality (as a model of Noumenal Reality or a picture of the outer world), then you are already ON MY FIELD.

Reply

Here, the difference between playing fields is clearly visible to me, but invisible to you.

You are operating within the field of cognitive activity and consciousness, while unconscious of the fact that 'you' are behind all that. The use of the possessive pronoun 'your' as in 'your consciousness produces' - a distinction is made between consciousness and the possessor of it. As soon as the idea that 'you use your consciousness to form' consciousness becomes the instrument of 'you' and not the  producer of intellectual products. 

Thus your game is played only on the field of consciousness. The field I am playing in has consciousness only as a subdomain and is a field that extends beyond that to the 'you' and higher that is well beyond 'you' and 'us' and consciousness. That is inconceivable to you right now, but I suggest that if you are willing to study the works of Kant and Hegel you may be able to get a glimpse of the field that lies beyond your dreams. [You may have heard of the Field of Dreams, but there is a field beyond that.]

The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are already accepted by many. What you are doing is very admirable, interesting and at least presented in an original way. If you want to be accepted more widely, it would probably be a good idea to study what others before you have already understood about the philosophy of Mind and Spirit, and try to find the correlation between their language and yours. That may help not only to bring your ideas more in line with what many are already familiar, and therefore make it much more understandable, but perhaps even get you beyond that stage.

Good wishes.

Respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri


From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
Dear Serge,

Namaste. When Planck 'complained' to the classical physicists, complacent with their electric light bulbs, that energy was not continuous little could they realize that such a 'complaint' would revolutionize science and technology the way it has in the last century. Today quantum scientists feeling complacent with their light emitting diodes (LEDs) may be disturbed by the'complaint' that 
modern science has failed to consider the role of the concept that the scientist contributes to the objects of science. This too is a common sense but revolutionary idea whose consequences will change science and society in ways that are imaginable today.

You have been presenting your 'solution' for a considerable amount of time here and in other forums. Yet you have been able to convince no one. You insist that others play your game on your turf without an ability to understand the ideas of others. As I have explained to you before in our exchanges, we are on different playing fields. If someone insists on only playing hockey on a hockey rink, and wants to challenge another playing soccer on a soccer field, it cannot be done while remaining in the hockey rink. One may think hockey's is the only game in town, but it's not.

Your comments regarding the Hungarian understanding of the word namaste is certainly related to the Sanskrit meaning of the term. From a book composed by Srila B.R. Sridhardeva Goswami, and translated into English entitled Prapanna-jivanamrita, subtitled Positive and Progressive Immortality, we find the following:

The cause of the tangible reality of surrender is expounded in the
Standard Codes of Religion (Smrti) –
 
"The syllable ma means 'self-asserting ego' (the misconception
of considering oneself to be a 'doer'), and the syllable na indicates its
prevention. Thus, the act of offering obeisances (namah) nullifies the
offerer's independence. The soul is naturally subordinate to the
Almighty, his intrinsic nature and innate function being servitude to
the Supreme Lord. Therefore, all actions performed thinking, 'I am
the doer,' should be utterly abandoned." -- Padma Purana


Respectfully,
B Madhava Puri







From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

-
Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 24, 2018 wrote:
>Career scientists are often unwilling to even look at this philosophical 
>development objectively, making them not only blind but ignorant 
>(ignoring it). The verbose elocution of their formal mathematical and
> one-sided conceptions of scientific materialism, however, fails to 
>address what those who without prejudice see and understand what is
> going on in the light of reason.
.
[S.P.] Indeed, the "verbose elocution" is the exact phrase to talk to Paul Werbos. :-)
.
Jokes apart, but I see a more serious problem here. Suppose, there are the persons who spend their evenings without electric light and only complain: "How bad it is to stay without electricity! We cannot read books in evenings, and we cannot switch on TV or computers". But, when an engineer comes and says that he has got a solution (in the form of diesel generator and incandescent lamps), the persons reply: "Or, no! This solution is too complex for us. You are using so many new terms and you talk about the principles that we are unable to comprehend! We would prefer to stay without electricity and continue complaining."
.
Yes, many modern-day philosophers complain that the objective science fails to address the subjective realm. But, when I come and say that I have got a solution (in the form of a specially developed meta-theory), the people prefer to ignore this solution and continue complaining that objective science only accepts materialism and ignores the subjective realm.
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
.
PS. It looks curious, but the word "Namaste", or "na-ma(s)-te", or "na-mas(h)-te", if being translated from Ukrainian language, verbally means "Here you are!", or "I am (or, it is) at your disposal".



--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Apr 30, 2018, 8:28:11 PM4/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Joan Walton <joanwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Serge

My statement would be: "Often, when in a quiet place, and I retreat deep into myself, I have an experience which is beyond my power to explain accurately in words; the closest I can get is that I experience a sense of pure love which is infinite and eternal".  

It seems that you are not interested in this, 

Thanks so much, Joan!  Thank you for bringing up something which I wish were more of a focus of the discussion here.

My immediate thought is to think once again of the great paper by Greeley and McCready, "Are we a Nation of Muystics?", reprinted in Goleman's anthology Consciousness, which surveyed people who would agree that they too have had this kind of experience.

Greeley recommended a lot of interesting follow-ons to that research, which I really wish NSF had funded (as they funded his initial study).  
Even modern survey based social science can be of use to real people... The insights he had already are very important, and help explain some aspects of why humans have not yet lived up to their full potential in this space.,

Warm regards,

   Paul 

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
May 1, 2018, 5:05:00 AM5/1/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> on April 30, 2018 wrote:
> In watching your exchanges here and elsewhere for months now, 
>I've noticed no one congratulating you on useful contributions.
>If no one has a use for your claims, they're literally useless.
.
[S.P.] I am not expecting congratulations. I am expecting to find another thinker who would have his/her own solutions in the field of consciousness studies. I mean ANY SOLUTION. However, I may provide a lot of examples when people do agree with my ideas. 
.
Second. What, in particular, you disagree with when reading my posts? Have you read my post to the end? Judging from your reply you have read only the first few sentences. But what about the last sentence? So, can you formulate a statement which would not be of one of the mentioned four levels of intellectual product? 
.
Why the Applied ADC Theory is so important? It is because it legitimizes the very usage of such concepts as "hypothesis", "applied theory", "meta-theory", "rationality/irrationality", "discussion", "intersubjectivity", and so on. It also shows in which two ways the applied theory can be approached, and, in particular, it shows that to construct the applied theory of consciousness we have first to construct the correspondent meta-theory.
.
Third. Have you read my reply to you on April 22, 2018 where I suggested you to read my commentary on Jane Roberts' book "The "Unknown" Reality: A Seth Book, Volume 1"? In case you have missed my post I attach it below.
.
By the way, if no one on this island is using boots, this does not mean that the boots, as some invention, are useless. 
.
With even more regards,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 6:37 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
________________________________________________
From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?

-
Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 28, 2018 wrote:
>The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are 
>already accepted by many.
.
Sadhu_Sanga-post_22-04-2018.txt

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
May 1, 2018, 5:05:00 AM5/1/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Joan Walton <joanwa...@gmail.com> on April 30, 2018 wrote:
> It seems that you are not interested in this, because it is a personal
> experience...
.
[S.P.] I have addressed this question yet in my reply to Whit Blauvelt on February 28, 2018 where I wrote: 
" There is no sense in discussing privately experienced consciousness-related phenomena. The case is that when being expressed in words, the good deal of important info stays unuttered. Therefore I prefer to discuss the question of how to construct a theory which would account for these phenomena." (for details, see this post attached below).
.
I ground my personal version of the applied theory of consciousness on my privately experiencing consciousness-related phenomena. I have addressed the difference between the bottom-up and top-down approaches yet in my reply to Paul Werbos on January 17, 2018 (see it attached too).
.
[Joan Walton] wrote:
>It seems to me that if  you are interested only in talking to people 
>about your particular theory...
.
[S.P.] It is shocking to which extent my ideas are being misinterpreted! I said that I take an interest to communicate with people (thinkers, theorists) who do have their own solutions in the field of consciousness studies. I take an interest to compare my solution with the solutions of other theorists. I take an interest to discuss whether the suggested solutions possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. So, what is wrong with my approach? 
.
Thanks for your reply,
Serge Patlavskiy


From: Joan Walton <joanwa...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 6:37 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
Dear Serge

My statement would be: "Often, when in a quiet place, and I retreat deep into myself, I have an experience which is beyond my power to explain accurately in words; the closest I can get is that I experience a sense of pure love which is infinite and eternal".  

It seems that you are not interested in this, because it is a personal experience (which I know many others share so there is an intersubjective validation of it); but because I cannot articulate it intellectually in a way that others can 'objectively' prove / disprove, it does not fit into one of your four categories?  Or it may be that it is your 4th category, because of your insistence on intellectual proof?

It is the choice of each of us as to what they accept as valid knowledge.  For me, the experience I have described, and the tacit knowledge that provides for me in relation to the nature of reality (and indeed what it tells me about the nature of consciousness which is a great interest of mine), is far more powerful and real, and in research terms, a significant source of useful data, than any intellectual explanation or analysis of that experience ( though that also does have a place).  

It seems to me that if  you are interested only in talking to people about your particular theory, you are missing out on a hugely rich and rewarding dimension of life. I don't accept that you have achieved any useful solution at all.  Hence our lack of interest in talking to each other is presumably mutual.  

Best wishes

Joan 
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:54 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-


Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 28, 2018 wrote:
>The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are 
>already accepted by many.
.
[S.P.] Did these "great philosophers" solve the problem of consciousness? No? Then I have no interest in their views. I, myself, am a self-sufficient thinker. I produce a new knowledge which cannot be found in the libraries. I do have my own original solution and I see the sense of discussing anything only with other thinkers who also have got their solutions. If I use the concept of the Earth as a globe, I have no interest to discuss the ideas like "the flat Earth". I have no interest to publish my papers, say, in the Journal of Consciousness Studies or to participate in Tucson Conferences where people are discussing/complaining why they cannot solve what they call the "hard problem of consciousness".
.
So, I have constructed the Applied ADC Theory (for details, scroll this thread down). Being an applied theory itself, it can be tested/falsified. This is what I take an interest in, and what I would like to discuss. The Applied ADC Theory predicts that whatever intellectual product a subject of cognitive activity constructs, it will necessary be of one of four possible levels -- of the D-level, GS-level, AT-level, or MT-level.
.
For example, if you formulate an assertion that there is a pillar in Delhi of 7.21 m high made of 99,9...% iron and that it is rust-resistant, you create the D-level intellectual product: you describe the object and provide the raw experimental findings -- the results of measurements and chemical analyses. 
.
If you say that there are other iron poles and other artefacts in India and throughout the World with similar physical/chemical properties, and you hypothesize that, maybe, there was a very technologically developed tradition of metal manufacturing two millennia ago, you, thereby, create the GS-level intellectual product: you consider many objects, generalize and systematize the collected data and formulate a certain hypothesis based on the available firmly established facts. By the way, the same facts may be generalized and systematized in different ways, so that we may have much differing hypotheses.
.
If you say that the pillars and other artefacts of such physical properties can be produced only in the oxygen-free environment (say, in outer space), you, thereby, create the AT-level intellectual product: you explain something and predict something. To test your statement, we would have to move the steel-making plant into space and to try to produce the iron of certain purity.
.
If you say that you believe that the pillar of Dehli and similar artefacts were produced by the gods from Sirius, you, thereby, create the MT-level intellectual product: you just announce your beliefs/suppositions/ postulates/axioms, which, by definition, require no proofs -- the others may either adopt your beliefs or reject them.
Sadhu_Sanga-post_28-02-2018.txt
Sadhu_Sanga-post_17-01-2018.txt

Joan Walton

unread,
May 1, 2018, 5:53:34 AM5/1/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge

You write: 

[Joan Walton] wrote:
>It seems to me that if  you are interested only in talking to people 
>about your particular theory...
.
[S.P.] It is shocking to which extent my ideas are being misinterpreted! I said that I take an interest to communicate with people (thinkers, theorists) who do have their own solutions in the field of consciousness studies. I take an interest to compare my solution with the solutions of other theorists. I take an interest to discuss whether the suggested solutions possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. So, what is wrong with my approach? 

I apologise if I misrepresented your view.  I will admit to not having read the earlier contributions to this email chain, so I may well have missed something significant, and I may be repeating what others have said.  We each have limited time, though, and there is a need to choose how to spend that time, so I guess we each prioritise that which is close to our own interests.  In relation to your own contributions, on the little I have read, it seems you are saying that you are only interested in talking to those who have solutions, and you have no interest in the great philosophers, nor in the Tucson conference or its associated publications, because they do not provide solutions.  This approach is based on the premis that, in our current state of awareness, useful  'solutions' are possible, in relation to our understanding of consciousness.  I personally do not accept that premis. So perhaps it is on that basis that I say that dialogue between us does not make for best use of time.  I wish you well in your conversations with people who do accept your premis, who are happy to prioritise their time in those kind of conversations, and look forward to reading about what are the 'useful' outcomes.  

Perhaps I need to identify what I see as a 'useful' outcome, as I realise we will all differ in this also.  What I seek is knowledge that will help us create a reality which enhances the flourishing of all living beings, and fosters an environment that allows for the flourishing of all future generations.  In the process, I would like to think we can contribute to an evolution of consciousness of what it means to be human.  That is quite a crude summary, I know - but the overall message is that, if we are involved in an evolution of consciousness , then this is a process which involves learning, and is not about creating definitive solutions.  In my view, the great philosophers have made an important contribution to that learning.  

Again, I apologise if I misrepresented you; I hope I have not done so in this email.  But I do feel that, at our current stage of evolution, the idea of 'solutions' is not a particularly helpful one.  

Best wishes

Joan 

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:14 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Joan Walton <joanwa...@gmail.com> on April 30, 2018 wrote:
> It seems that you are not interested in this, because it is a personal
> experience...
.
[S.P.] I have addressed this question yet in my reply to Whit Blauvelt on February 28, 2018 where I wrote: 
" There is no sense in discussing privately experienced consciousness-related phenomena. The case is that when being expressed in words, the good deal of important info stays unuttered. Therefore I prefer to discuss the question of how to construct a theory which would account for these phenomena." (for details, see this post attached below).
.
I ground my personal version of the applied theory of consciousness on my privately experiencing consciousness-related phenomena. I have addressed the difference between the bottom-up and top-down approaches yet in my reply to Paul Werbos on January 17, 2018 (see it attached too).
.
[Joan Walton] wrote:
>It seems to me that if  you are interested only in talking to people 
>about your particular theory...
.
[S.P.] It is shocking to which extent my ideas are being misinterpreted! I said that I take an interest to communicate with people (thinkers, theorists) who do have their own solutions in the field of consciousness studies. I take an interest to compare my solution with the solutions of other theorists. I take an interest to discuss whether the suggested solutions possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. So, what is wrong with my approach? 
.
Thanks for your reply,
Serge Patlavskiy


From: Joan Walton <joanwa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
Dear Serge

My statement would be: "Often, when in a quiet place, and I retreat deep into myself, I have an experience which is beyond my power to explain accurately in words; the closest I can get is that I experience a sense of pure love which is infinite and eternal".  

It seems that you are not interested in this, because it is a personal experience (which I know many others share so there is an intersubjective validation of it); but because I cannot articulate it intellectually in a way that others can 'objectively' prove / disprove, it does not fit into one of your four categories?  Or it may be that it is your 4th category, because of your insistence on intellectual proof?

It is the choice of each of us as to what they accept as valid knowledge.  For me, the experience I have described, and the tacit knowledge that provides for me in relation to the nature of reality (and indeed what it tells me about the nature of consciousness which is a great interest of mine), is far more powerful and real, and in research terms, a significant source of useful data, than any intellectual explanation or analysis of that experience ( though that also does have a place).  

It seems to me that if  you are interested only in talking to people about your particular theory, you are missing out on a hugely rich and rewarding dimension of life. I don't accept that you have achieved any useful solution at all.  Hence our lack of interest in talking to each other is presumably mutual.  

Best wishes

Joan 

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:54 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-


Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 28, 2018 wrote:
>The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are 
>already accepted by many.
.
[S.P.] Did these "great philosophers" solve the problem of consciousness? No? Then I have no interest in their views. I, myself, am a self-sufficient thinker. I produce a new knowledge which cannot be found in the libraries. I do have my own original solution and I see the sense of discussing anything only with other thinkers who also have got their solutions. If I use the concept of the Earth as a globe, I have no interest to discuss the ideas like "the flat Earth". I have no interest to publish my papers, say, in the Journal of Consciousness Studies or to participate in Tucson Conferences where people are discussing/complaining why they cannot solve what they call the "hard problem of consciousness".
.
So, I have constructed the Applied ADC Theory (for details, scroll this thread down). Being an applied theory itself, it can be tested/falsified. This is what I take an interest in, and what I would like to discuss. The Applied ADC Theory predicts that whatever intellectual product a subject of cognitive activity constructs, it will necessary be of one of four possible levels -- of the D-level, GS-level, AT-level, or MT-level.
.
For example, if you formulate an assertion that there is a pillar in Delhi of 7.21 m high made of 99,9...% iron and that it is rust-resistant, you create the D-level intellectual product: you describe the object and provide the raw experimental findings -- the results of measurements and chemical analyses. 
.
If you say that there are other iron poles and other artefacts in India and throughout the World with similar physical/chemical properties, and you hypothesize that, maybe, there was a very technologically developed tradition of metal manufacturing two millennia ago, you, thereby, create the GS-level intellectual product: you consider many objects, generalize and systematize the collected data and formulate a certain hypothesis based on the available firmly established facts. By the way, the same facts may be generalized and systematized in different ways, so that we may have much differing hypotheses.
.
If you say that the pillars and other artefacts of such physical properties can be produced only in the oxygen-free environment (say, in outer space), you, thereby, create the AT-level intellectual product: you explain something and predict something. To test your statement, we would have to move the steel-making plant into space and to try to produce the iron of certain purity.
.
If you say that you believe that the pillar of Dehli and similar artefacts were produced by the gods from Sirius, you, thereby, create the MT-level intellectual product: you just announce your beliefs/suppositions/ postulates/axioms, which, by definition, require no proofs -- the others may either adopt your beliefs or reject them.
.
So, to test/falsify my Applied ADC Theory, you have to formulate an assertion which would not belong to any of the mentioned above four levels of intellectual products. But, if you fail to formulate such an assertion, this would mean that my Applied ADC Theory is true.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

BMP

unread,
May 1, 2018, 8:29:27 AM5/1/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge

Namaste. Thank you for the rather stark and brutal honesty of your reply. It is valuable in the sense that the demeanor you express, in my experience, seems representative of the way many people today also feel. It helps to shine a light on that.

There is a book written in 1895 by H.G. Wells, "The Time Machine" which people of the time bound world found intriguing because it dealt with the idea of time travel. But there was an important theme about the people of the future who were depicted as having lost all interest in learning and books. Much of the information of the past was stored on disks, but the Eloi, as the were called, did not find any interest in them at all. His thesis was that when people achieve a paradisaical way of life they  loose all intelligence which he believed arises out of seeking solutions to assuage fear.

An underworld of technological people, who lived in the darkness of ignorance, supported the paradise of the upper world and fed upon the Eloi like cattle. For a book written over a century ago, some of the things that were described might today seem very prescient.

Getting more to the point of your reply, you write:

>Did these "great philosophers" solve the problem of consciousness? No? 

Reply

The most important thing in your reply is the question mark after No. It means you consider the possibility that there may be others before you who have, as you say, 'solved ' the problem or explained the nature of consciousness, but you seem to refuse to read what they have written on the subject. 

In science, the findings and conclusions of previous scientists are essential for making progress in science. That's how science, knowledge and civilization progresses. Because humans have and preserve history through education they can make the kind of revolutionary changes in civilization that we find over relatively short periods of time, geologically speaking. We don't find those kinds of rapid variations in the non-human world. But if we refuse to study past history, then we are doomed to repeating the past over and over again, constantly reinventing the wheel, as it were. Nietzche called it the 'eternal return.'

Hegel and others have remarked that "the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." Each generation wants to create the world anew in its own image. No doubt making knowledge  our own, i.e. realizing it, transforming what is merely known into living a life of wisdom, goodness and love, is essential. But we may not make the mistake of thinking the presence of the past (history), is not part of which our essence is made. 

Perhaps a more practical metaphor might be appropriate. Jesus found it useful to teach in parables in order to make it simpler for people to understand. 

If you build a soap factory, because soap is useful for so many purposes, but fail to consider that there are already so many factories already producing soap, with lots of experience and customers, you may soon find your factory is not profitable. In such enterprise, any successful entrepreneur would certainly consider the competition before starting a new venture.

Science and scientists today may think they have the most substantial understanding of what is the fundamental truth, the hard reality. in terms of mass, energy, information, and so on. The conceptual words in which philosophy is expressed, on the other hand, seem like empty ephemera to  such persons. Thus they come to the subject of consciousness as if it were just another problem to be solved in terms of what they know of mass, energy, information, and so on, and that the discoveries of the past and present philosophers have nothing to contribute to their efforts. 

What we have been trying to emphasize in this group is that such a demeanor is not going to help in understanding consciousness or those subjects that also fall within the more personal region of the total experience of life, including life itself. We are suggesting that you only may consider this.

Humbly and respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri
 

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 10:34 AM
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

BMP

unread,
May 1, 2018, 9:13:47 AM5/1/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Prof Joan Walton

Namaste. We deeply appreciate your gracious interest and help in the work of our mission. Your intervention was crucial in making it possible for Spd. Shanta Maharaja to travel to London. Gratitude is not enough to express what that means for us. Krishna tells us in the Bhagavad-gita 10.10 that He gives the highest reward to those are constantly devoted to His purpose - the intelligence or understanding by which they may come to Him. 

There are three secrets [guhya, ghuyatara, guhyatama], or levels of confidential knowledge, that Krishna reveals to the people of the world in His conversation with His friend, Arjuna. These will be recognized according to one's qualification. 

The first secret is that you are not matter but spirit, atma, of the same nature as Brahman. Brahman means Spirit, not consciousness. Cit and its derivatives refer to consciousness.

The second more secret knowledge is that spirit is personal, not impersonal, and is called Paramatma, Who is like the atma, a person but superior in nature. Paramatma is the adi Purusha, and He supports [grounds] and maintains the whole realm of the spiritual and material worlds. 

But the most secret of all secrets, that cannot be truly known in any other way except by His grace, ['lest they be proud' - Ephesians 2.9] is Bhagavan realization, Who can be known only by prema bhakti, pure Love and Who is that that exchange of love personified as Sri Radha Krishna. 

So I think you are indeed blessed, and we are humbled by your willingness to share your wisdom with us. It seems you may have even started your own 'Metoo" movement.

Humbly and respectfully,
Bhakti Madhava Puri




Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 11:36 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is "stuff"?
Dear Serge

My statement would be: "Often, when in a quiet place, and I retreat deep into myself, I have an experience which is beyond my power to explain accurately in words; the closest I can get is that I experience a sense of pure love which is infinite and eternal".  

It seems that you are not interested in this, because it is a personal experience (which I know many others share so there is an intersubjective validation of it); but because I cannot articulate it intellectually in a way that others can 'objectively' prove / disprove, it does not fit into one of your four categories?  Or it may be that it is your 4th category, because of your insistence on intellectual proof?

It is the choice of each of us as to what they accept as valid knowledge.  For me, the experience I have described, and the tacit knowledge that provides for me in relation to the nature of reality (and indeed what it tells me about the nature of consciousness which is a great interest of mine), is far more powerful and real, and in research terms, a significant source of useful data, than any intellectual explanation or analysis of that experience ( though that also does have a place).  

It seems to me that if  you are interested only in talking to people about your particular theory, you are missing out on a hugely rich and rewarding dimension of life. I don't accept that you have achieved any useful solution at all.  Hence our lack of interest in talking to each other is presumably mutual.  

Best wishes

Joan 
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:54 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-


Bhakti Madhava Puri on April 28, 2018 wrote:
>The teachings of the great philosophers, East and West, are 
>already accepted by many.
.
[S.P.] Did these "great philosophers" solve the problem of consciousness? No? Then I have no interest in their views. I, myself, am a self-sufficient thinker. I produce a new knowledge which cannot be found in the libraries. I do have my own original solution and I see the sense of discussing anything only with other thinkers who also have got their solutions. If I use the concept of the Earth as a globe, I have no interest to discuss the ideas like "the flat Earth". I have no interest to publish my papers, say, in the Journal of Consciousness Studies or to participate in Tucson Conferences where people are discussing/complaining why they cannot solve what they call the "hard problem of consciousness".
.
So, I have constructed the Applied ADC Theory (for details, scroll this thread down). Being an applied theory itself, it can be tested/falsified. This is what I take an interest in, and what I would like to discuss. The Applied ADC Theory predicts that whatever intellectual product a subject of cognitive activity constructs, it will necessary be of one of four possible levels -- of the D-level, GS-level, AT-level, or MT-level.
.
For example, if you formulate an assertion that there is a pillar in Delhi of 7.21 m high made of 99,9...% iron and that it is rust-resistant, you create the D-level intellectual product: you describe the object and provide the raw experimental findings -- the results of measurements and chemical analyses. 
.
If you say that there are other iron poles and other artefacts in India and throughout the World with similar physical/chemical properties, and you hypothesize that, maybe, there was a very technologically developed tradition of metal manufacturing two millennia ago, you, thereby, create the GS-level intellectual product: you consider many objects, generalize and systematize the collected data and formulate a certain hypothesis based on the available firmly established facts. By the way, the same facts may be generalized and systematized in different ways, so that we may have much differing hypotheses.
.
If you say that the pillars and other artefacts of such physical properties can be produced only in the oxygen-free environment (say, in outer space), you, thereby, create the AT-level intellectual product: you explain something and predict something. To test your statement, we would have to move the steel-making plant into space and to try to produce the iron of certain purity.
.
If you say that you believe that the pillar of Dehli and similar artefacts were produced by the gods from Sirius, you, thereby, create the MT-level intellectual product: you just announce your beliefs/suppositions/ postulates/axioms, which, by definition, require no proofs -- the others may either adopt your beliefs or reject them.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages