On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:39:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Mar 2014, at 21:21, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post: > > *The "TOE" extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of addition > and multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you can prove the > existence of the universal numbers and or all their computations, and even > interview the Löbian numbers, on what is possible for them, in different > relative sense.* > > *So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it is > impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic, making > arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.* > > *God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added "Add and > Multiply". * > *Basically. - **Bruno* > > *Start;* "TOE" extracted from comp - so we are talking about a fraction > of everything, the part as extracted. > > > The TOE is extracted from a reasoning, but the TOE is not the E, like > Hubble telescope is not a far away galaxy. The TOE has to be a finite > object, but the object the TOE is talking about can be infinite, and is > infinite with comp, and even more so in the inside views. > > > > I like to consider Everything as infinite and all, beyond what we can know > about, identify or understand. > > > Me too. No problem with this. > Why? Why do you both *like* to consider the world this way that condemns the highest dreams of discovery to disappointment and futility. I could relate to assuming that for a methodological reason. And for a sincerely believed theory reason. But I'm struggling with the personal preference reason.
> > > > > *Finish:* "GOD" created the integers - and the World, and the Angels, > And....(faith). He > (or She, or It) added "Add and multiply" - nothing else. > (Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of children). > > How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply integers, to > get *0.123456*? > or *irrational* numbers? > > > No problem proving the existence of 0.123456. > No problem getting all negative numbers, all rational numbers, and ... all > constructive real numbers (but the notion of all real numbers makes no > sense in the 3), but still sense for the internal views). > > In the comp TOE we cannot derive the existence of all real numbers, but we > can easily derive the existence of machines believing in all real numbers. > For me the most significant part was Irrational Numbers...which you seem to have overlooked in your answer. How does the comp ToE, explain, derive, and predict in nature as her preference this cult of number? Unlike the others, this is a clear and real oppiortunity to say something new we didn't know. Like, what are the irrational numbers in nature we don't know about? What is the origin of this numbers and their function, that only they can deliver, only because they are irrational? > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
