Thanks, Bruno, for trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,On 4 Mar 2018, at 10:44, Ralph Frost <ralph.frost@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno,I reply here below in attempt to convey to you an understanding of my term "nested structured~duality".Scroll down a ways, below UTOPIA to [rf Mar 4]...On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:Dear Vinod,On 1 Mar 2018, at 13:35, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com> wrote:DEAR BRUNO,

MY WIFI CONNECTION IS NON- FUNCTIONING SINCE PAST 2-3 DAYS SO I AM CONSTRAINED TO SEND MESSAGES THRU MY CELLPHONE WHERE EDITING AND SPELL CHECK FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE.Thanks for trying. It looks OK here.On Thursday, March 1, 2018, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Vinod,

>

> On 27 Feb 2018, at 10:23, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>

> On Monday, February 19, 2018, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> Hi Vinod,

>>

>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:43, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The fundamentality of any numbers and their relations in the absence of any consciousness/minds and some discrete physicality is inconceivable and prima facie an absurd proposition since

>> i) Numbers per se lack any ontology of their own. By ontology, I a mean some "substance" or “structure"

>>

>> So you choose the Aristotelian ontology at the start. OK. Mechanism is then necessarily wrong.

>> But I have never see an evidence for substance. And structure is a mathematical concept which can be defined, but it assumes much more than the numbers.

>

> BUT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND WHY ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY SHOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH NUMBERS, THEIR RELATIONS AND ARITHMETIC?

>

>

> You have to keep in mind my working hypothesis: digital mechanism, or computationalism, in the cognitive science. In that case, my (mundane) consciousness is supposed to be preserved through a substitution of my brain or my body (including possibly a part of the environment) for a digital computer emulating this at some right substitution level.

BUT ABOVE IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.I have discovered all this the careful observation of nature, especially the microbial world, and the reading of books and papers in Molecular Biology, until I discovered that the circular loop I saw manifested in biology were already in arithmetic, which makes me decide to study mathematics (instead of biology) and eventually the proof of the completeness of arithmetic with respect to the existence of computations confirms my empirical feeling that the physical reality has a phenomenological origin only.There are many evidence of the Mechanist hypothesis. All known natural laws confirms it (except the wave-packet reduction), but we have also already the indirect consequences: the many-words/histories and the quantum logic of the observable.Any way, I do not defend the truth of mechanism. I am open to its falsity. But the evidences are much more on the side of arithmeticalism than of physicalism. In fact physicists usually do not inquire on metaphysics, and no paper in physics assumes the primary matter of the physicalist metaphysicians, unless they are “believer” of some sort.THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS WHETHER OUR CONSCIOUSNESS SURVIVES DIGITAL SUBSTITUTION BY A MACHINE OR A COMPUTER OR NOT?Indeed, and I could explain why this cannot exist.But this is close to obvious, as there is no proof (argument or reason) for its contrary.IN VIEW OF THIS, ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS IS AN UTOPIA.All theories are. We can only count the evidence, and appreciate or not the simplicity and elegance of the theory.> Then you have to keep in mind a fundamental result in computer science, obtained by those who discovered the universal machine (the mathematical computer). They have eventually understood that the notion of universal machine is not just mathematical, but already arithmetical. In fact Kurt Gödel showed this before, but without realising it. Emil Post also anticipated all this much before.

DID THOSE WHO DISCOVERED THE UNIVERSAL MACHINE OR MATHEMATICAL COMPUTER DISCOVER IT WITHOUT THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS OR MIND?Of course not, and they use paper to publish the result. But you cannot infer validly that this makes consciousness primary or different from the arithmetical truth seen by itself.[rf Mar 4] I think the distinction I am trying to make is right in this region of your thinking, where I infer, or peer inward through both "consciousness" and "arithmetical truth seen by itself", and name the underlying commonality: nested structured~duality.I am not sure I understand.

[rf] Not sure, or sure you don't? We/I/you may be up against being between a rock and a hard place. If you notice, I am making what I guess is a primary ontological statement:

"Reality is nested structured~duality".

This is not claiming a primary _physical_ ontology, which is someone else's, maybe Vinod's, recent phrase hereabouts, but I am making an ontological statement. I believe you express that you don't ~see or ~have any need for ontological substances and, I guess your methodology is to go --Is it?-- just the epistemological route?

So, it may be that you are not capable of understanding because of your currently developed and pre-existing understanding(s) and investments. I certainly can relate as I have tried to admit about my lack of logic and abstract math abilities.

I don't know if the following is a fair or accurate projection, but it seems to me that you ~are always making an ontological statement, albeit, perhaps covertly, along with your other expressions which, paraphrased, sounds like: "Reality is numbers and math -- or Turing machines and numbers". Or, "Reality is knowledge which can only be in the form and terms of numbers and Turing devices" (Or, +,*,s,0). So, from my bias, I sort of observe you making the covert ontological statement.

Your arguments or talking points and approach seem to be set up and well honed for dispelling a (primary) physical ontology, however, not so much with dismissing a transcendent primary [nested structured~duality] ontology.

The arithmetical ~realism may give the account for knowledge, but not so much for the unknowns and the new knowledge that first appears via the analog (physical) math. Transcending at that point illuminates that the numbers stories are and always have been also instance of nested structured~duality.

Clear as mud?

OBVIOUSLY NO. SO THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THR UNIVERSAL MACHINE ITSELF IS CONSCIOUSNESS OR MIND BASED AND OUT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS, NEITHER THERE CAN BE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY NUMBER NOR. ANY UNIVERSAL MACHINE.That does not follow. I need my consciousness to believe in the existence of the moon, does not logically entail that without my consciousness the moon does not exist.As a scientist, I have no choice than to start on the proposition people agree with, and I start with elementary arithmetic, if only to define precisely what a digital machine is.[rf Mar 4] Not that you are necessarily doing it since you do propose some type of epistemological construction and some kind of test, but the general appearance is, after you get through saying one cannot validly choose "consciousness as primary", it appears you go ahead and assume "arithmetical truth seen by itself" as primary. This step creates several opportunities for immediate confusion and conflict.Also, consider your term: "arithmetical truth seen by itself". First, my hunch is, Vinod and I and others ~ see it as "arithmetical truth and/or notions of arithmetical truth as seen by consciousness”.OK. But it is the consciousness of the universal person canonically attached to the many relative incarnation/implementation in arithmetic.

[rf] Perhaps in your case, but not in mine. I'm taking one breath at a time and metabolizing my doughnut, generating 10^20 water molecules per second in the process, anticipating what my wife and I will have for lunch.

Secondly, though, look at the statement itself: "arithmetical truth seen by itself". Yes, just sub-consciously opting for mathematical-like recursions probably seem acceptable particularly as an ad hoc or natural maneuver, but I would ask you to consider the other typical strategy for resolving knots of this type: some kind of transcendence to a different level of organization.Maybe? That is not precise enough, but I would compare this with the nuances on provability/rational-believability imposed by incompleteness.

[rf] Firstly, though, do you catch my drift about the two approaches: (1) invoke more recursion, or, (2) transcend to a different level of organization and revise the tenets?

Both are recursive, but more than that, both are also instances of an inherent, but until ~now not even provisionally ~formalized or acknowledged (as far as my meager knowledge has it) as a universal pattern of "nesting" or "nested structure”.That is to vague for me. Numbers and recursion is full of nested structure. Recursion by itself is not Turing universal, but recursion needs not much to become Turing universal, and once we get the Turing universality, … God lose control somehow, and lost Itself in the “creation”.

[rf] So, let me get this straight, recursion and nested structure is pervasive throughout the numbers and relations but in your epistemology you don't need to write that down as one of your constraints or tenets but you can just invoke it, ad hocly, when you feel like it? Is that the type of formalism you are talking about when you "assume mechanism". Might Nested Structure be missing Statement -1 in your Sane04 introduction?

God may just be being patient and thoughtful.

People apparently assume such in many instances and resort to transcendence (often un- or sub-consciously) when the going gets tough, and certainly at points of paradigm transition.So here, we get the nuances imposed by incompleteness:p (truth of arithmetical proposition p)[]p (probability)[]p & p (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)[]p & <>t (Observable, “bettable”)[]p & <>t & p (Sensible).Which gives 8 precise modal logics (as three of them split on the incompleteness distinction between truth and rational-justifiability).It is testable, because the following:[]p & p (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)[]p & <>t (Observable, “bettable”)[]p & <>t & p (Sensible)… must give quantum logics when p is restricted to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) sentences, and indeed we get the quantisation there. The rest is open problems, but this leads to a non physicalist theory of consciousness with a testable theory of matter.

[rf] Yes. What you present is clearly an instance of nested structured~duality.

But, how come that works? It's a slightly different thing to notice and accept that the reason transcendence works is due to reality BEING nested structured~duality -- to give the feature a name.?

[rf] You seem to still be arguing against a physicalist theory of consciousness when what I am saying is the arithmetical ~reality and the physical ~realism are both instances of nested structured~duality.

This thing that I advocate, that reality is nested structured~duality, to me is a way of asserting that reality is a "nested" or "hierarchical" system. That the nesting is a universal feature or principle. This leads me to sometime accuse the dominant scientific paradigm as being a "non-nested model as a opposed to what I am saying it inherently is as a nested system. I am aware that we all generally work with various stacks: {physical, metaphysical}, {mathematical, physical, theological,metaphysical...}, [subatomic, atomic, molecular, organic, biologic, species, ecological...} etc.. And these all seem to imply a sort of ad hoc or unconscious acceptable of nesting, which they do.You remind me someone defending anti-foundation axiom in set theory. With mechanism, we get the natural nesting provided by the many recursion theorems.

[rf] "The anti-foundation axiom postulates that each such directed graph corresponds to the membership structure of a unique set. For example, the directed graph with only one node and an edge from that node to itself corresponds to a set of the form

*x*= {*x*}." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom
Reading the wikipedia quickly, the thing this jogs in my meager storyline is, for instance, that I sort of hold the impression that ALL tetrahedra formed via four center-to-vertex radii have five multiple states -- borrowing the magnetic markings: n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4. This "comes about" from the/my original conception of "bipolar polyhedral structures" where the ends of each radii would always be slightly different --imbalanced, dualic, bipolar-- from each other (+/- an electron, or a photon, etc.). So, all such members have or are multiple states even if one thinks they only look like/have one state.

This story seems to insert or re-locate "duality", "multiple states", maybe "quantum increments" into a different level of organization in math or sets.

I can't tell if that's pro- or anti-foundation.

However, at this junction, particularly, in trying to develop a scientific paradigm accounting for physical and mental artifacts and attributes, I see the need and advantage to name and transcend to the more unified level of organization. Thus, reality is nested structured~duality.I would say this for the platonic Noùs, the intellect. The truth above (the One, the cosmic consciousness) is one, and thus not a many (and thus not nested). The nested view of the one is in the many “ideas”, and those ideas are nested in more than one ways.

[rf] One world; many descriptions. One world; many epistemologies. Reality is nested structured~duality. Many instances.

Regarding ~you developing understanding of "assume reality is nested structured~duality”,I don’t know what you mean by reality. It is the object of inquiry. My method is starting with the hypothesis that our bodies are mechanical, and the results is that the ultimate truth is elementary arithmetic, with the physical given by a mode of self-reference. Making that theory of consciousness testable. To assume reality is a nested structure without saying which one is saying too much general. It is true, but does not lead to testing, at least not that I can figure out from what you say. “Reality” is as much general than “nested structured-duality”. A duality between what and what?

[rf] Well, I appreciate you trying to understand. Like I said, if your covert ontological substance is numbers and Turing devices, then you would naturally have a conflict trying to conceptualize that arithmetical realism is an instance of the underlying (fundamental) nested structured~duality.

I suggest you try to accept it as a more general form of, and providing a container for your "assume mechanism" hypothesis, albeit, since NSD is more general, it contains and describes all hypotheses, theories, models, etc., in that each of those artifacts and their descriptions (their ontologies and epistemologies) arise from and invoke and are assessed by the recursive NSD pattern of "pick a structure and pick one or more dualities or distinctions and build additional nested structured~dualities outward, from (those/recent/adjacent) initial (nested structured~duality) conditions".In this way, the term: "nested structured~duality" is or becomes the name or label of the "root class" of reality -- each reality, every reality. Previously, this root class was active and influential and used on an ad hoc basis, but it was also unacknowledged as a universal feature and it was also nameless. Now it is acknowledged and named.I am sorry but I do not understand.

[rf] I appreciate you trying. Maybe it takes a while, you know, to revise or grow new or different cognitive structures.

BOTH KURT GÖDEL AND EMIL POST WERE ALSO DEPENDENT ON THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS AND MINDS FOR MAKING ANY HYPOTHESIS OR THEOREM INCLUDING THAT OF UNIVERSAL MACHINE. SO YOU CAN'T GET RID OF CONSCIOUSNESS AT ANY STAGE FOR CONCEIVING OR EXISTENCE OF NUMBERS/ARITHMETIC/UNIVERSAL MSCHINE.

> This means that if you are willing to bet that “18 is not a prime number” is true independently of your mundane consciousness then “this or that computation will exist, if it exists, independently of your mundane consciousness.

BUT WITHOUT OUR MUNDANE CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE CAN'T BE THE EXISTENCE OF NO.

18, LEAVE ALONE THR ISSUE OF IT BEING PRIME OR NOT.Some insects exploit the primes 13 and 17 for the time of reproduction. Would you say that the prime numbers is a creation of the insects?[rf] More likely they also have some relevant 12- and 16-unit length polymers involved in some packaging that prompt for the appearance of primes triggering from some uninformed observer perspective. Notice again that you also bring up a composited, entangled math-physical instance or example and then infer you can validly then just erase the physical portion to regain the pre-conceived ~arithmetic realism/platonism.Not that that is unhelpful or non-productive tactic. It's just not the only approach, nor (as the history of mathematics indicates) is it always the absolutely correct one.I start from what I understand, to put light on what I don’t understand. The mystery I am interested in in the mind-body problem.

[rf] What is mind?

I am more certain that 18 is not a prime number than I am of any natural laws. I am not sure I can make sense of your doubt here, if any.You speculate on the existence of “ontologically primary” physical universe, but not only there are no evidence at all (still less proof), but we do have indirect evidence of the contrary (just the living animal and plants bodies, and the quantum mechanics which confirms the startling consequence of computationalism (our infinite self-multiplication at each instant).[rf] Okay. But let's say that among all the computationals, there are also some non-computationals, too, analogous, I guess, to prime numbers scattered amid the other numbers. What then? Add another epicycle? Create another instance of nested structured~duality and cast it and conceptualize it in terms as an improved version of mathematical realism?Or, might that be when ~you or other mathematicians might need to consider transcending to a different, more unified model?Yes. Until we find a discrepancy with the observable. We learn when our theories are shown wrong, but they have to be enough precise for that.

[rf] ...Within the rules of your methodology. One discrepancy you apparently already have is working with the tenets of ~your paradigm, ~you end up with the mind-body anomaly(ies). Also, ~you may lack a theory or model of consciousness and even an approximate understanding of reality. How much proof do you need to try some different paradigmatic tenets?

If the brain (not consciousness) was not Turing emulable, you should find something which do not obey to the physical laws in the brain, as the current physical laws are mainly computable (only mathematicians can invent non computable solution of the schroedinger equation, by bringing up a special non computable hamiltonian, for which no evidence exist in nature. Note that classical physics and classical GR are not computable, but once made quantum, they are again computable.[rf] Which, I understand, means descriptive of, right?Descriptive of?By computable, I mean programmable on a universal number, or a universal machine, or a universal combinators, or (with Church-thesis) just programmable. A computation is a sequence of machine’s state brought by the activity of some universal machine/number.

[rf] Like when I push buttons on my HP11c and then make out one check to pay two utility bills. The number displayed is descriptive of the sum dollars and cents I owe and I interpret it as that. When I say "descriptive of", I mean, the math process generates a number that is descriptive of something and then a person formulates the appropriate interpretation and/or programs it in.

I ARGUE THAT THERE CAN'T BE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY NUMBER/ARITHMETIC/UNIVERSAL MACHINE OUTSIDE OUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS EVEN IF THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DISCRETE OBJECTIVE REALITY OUTSIDE OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS.I can agree with this, as consciousness will eventually be explained with (only) the arithmetical truth. To explain this I would have to explain that “truth” itself is not something than we (the machines) can define. This requires too much technics for being done here and now.The point is mainly that there is no physical universe, without the consciousness of the (Löbian) Numbers.> Maybe I could put it in another way. If you are willing to accept the truth that “18 is not prime” is true in the cosmic consciousness, or from the cosmic consciousness “view-point", then the existence of all computations is fixed and determined in that absolute point of view.

YES, I AGREE TO THE ABOVE POINT OF VIEW TO SOME EXTENT. BUT I THINK EVEN COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS (CC) CAN'T CONCEIVE OF ANY NUMBERS IN THR ABSENCE OF SOME DISCRETE PHYSICALITY.CC created the natural numbers and CC thought it was all good.Then CC told the numbers to add themselves, and CC thought that it was all nice.Then CC told the numbers to multiply themselves and CC said: oops!Why? Because once the numbers can add and multiply themselves, they brought the universal machine in the picture, and CC lost itself through all of them, until he remembers who CC is, and recognise itself in the others, even the humblest bacteria.ALTERNATIVELY I CAN ALSO SUGGEST THAT CC WANTED THE CREATION AND WORKING OF THE UNIVERSE IN DETERMINED FASHION AS FOLLOWING SOME LAWS. THESE LAWS FOUND ITS EXPRESSION IN FORM OF ARITHMETIC OF NUMBERS.I think that the speculation on a primary physical universe makes everything Moree complicated, so in absence of any evidences, I prefer to not assume it at the start, and then look at the evidences provides by nature, and the evidences favour a lot Mechanism. The direct evidence fromboilogy, and the indirect (quantum) evidences coming from physics.[rf] A middle way is to transcend to a more unified level of organization where both ~physical and ~mental (including the mathematical computable and non-computable artifacts) arise from the more unified common denominator or "root class" which I label as "nested structured~duality”.You take precise notions, and semantics to make them more difficult by using an expression that you have still not explain, or not explain the importance. The universal dovetailing (the program which generates all programs and execute them all) is nested in the transfinite, actually like the Mandelbrot set. Nesting is important, but does not make sense when taken as a primitive feature of reality.What I give is a theorem, which is just that if we are machine, then physics is given by a mode of self-reference in arithmetic. It makes the neopythagorean right. For the ontology we don’t need more, an worst, we cannot use more without introducing a discrepancy with the consequence of mechanism.This avoids assuming a primary physical, OR a primary mathematic/arithmetic reality and each of those, plus more can continue along as they always have been just being instances of nested structured~duality, like all the other aspects, artifacts and experiences of reality.

> That second formulation is somehow problematic, as you can guess with an expression like “cosmic consciousness’ point-of-view. The philosopher Nagel suggests the 0th-person view in an (arguably) similar context.

0- TH PERSON VIEW PROPOSAL ILLOGICAL PRIMA FACIE.OK.

> When this part of the definition of true/absolute is formalised, or asked to the Universal Machine, It remains mute or ask question about a possible identification between Truth and the semi-computable truth. The identification will be of the same type than self-consistency: that is true but not rationally assertable/justifiable.

BUT STILL YOU CAN'T GET RID OF CONSCIOUSNESS SINCE THE VERY ARITHMETIC MACHINE EXIST IN CONSCIOUSNESS AND POSING OF ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD ALSO ARISE FROM CONSCIOUSNESSIn science, we need to start from what people already believe. If you believe in “18 is not prime”, and alike, you will understand the reasoning, which does not prove mechanism (that is not the goal), but shows that mechanism makes the number (or Turing equivalent) primary..That the numbers are creations of the CC is not really relevant at the start, although this is indeed proved when we accept some relation between consciousness and the concept of truth.[rf] That's one way to go, I guess, relying upon mathematical recursion -- right? Relying on arithmetical truth seen by itself?It is more like the arithmetical truth/reality as seen by the universal person emulated by the infinitely many arithmetical relations supporting it.But in the transcendent approach, notice that where you say, """which does not prove mechanism (that is not the goal), but shows that mechanism makes the number (or Turing equivalent) primary..""", you are actually proving is that nested structured~duality (i.e., the stack of NSD that you are employing -- Turing machines and numbers and logic stacks, and mechanism, etc.,) is primary. Remember, you represent numbers as s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0)))... functions which are also rather obvious instances of nested structured~duality.OK. The point is that 0, s(0), .. is enough. At some points, computations are equal to such s(s(s(s(s(s(…. (0)))))). Physical existence and psychological existence are brought by the true relation, provable or not by this or that numbers, among the numbers. All what needs to be assumed “in fine” is elementary arithmetic. The physical realism is explained by a mathematical (arithmetical) Maya, a bit like if the numbers were inconceivably good in prestidigitation!Best regards,Bruno

I appreciate you trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality, and your questions and comments.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

>

>

>

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>> ii) All the arithmetic is a product of our assumptions as produced in our conscious minds.

>>

>> That makes sense in your non-mechanist Aristotelian theory. I prefer to assume 2+2=4, which is far less speculative, and accepted by all scientists.

>

> IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY, THIS IS A FACT THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION OF 2 PLUS 2--4 UNLESS THERE IS THE PRIOR EXISTENCE OF TWO.The existence of two, that is the truth of the statement Ex(x = s(s(0))) is a theorem of the theory described just below, like the existence of the prime numbers, and like the existence of the computations and their implementation in arithmetic.>

> I have given my precise assumption: classical logic + the theory of Robinson sometimes called Q:

> 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

> From this you can deduce Ex(x = s(s(0)), that we interpret as the existence of the number two (the successor of the successor of zero).

BUT THE QUESTION IS IF CAN YOU MAKE THE ABOVE PRECISE ASSUMPTIONS OF CLASSICAL LOGIC OR THE THEORY OF ROBINSON WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS?I cannot, but my consciousness is required at some meta level. The statements just above do not refer to consciousness. Either you agree with them, or you refute them. A priori, they have nothing to do with matter and consciousness. But with mechanism, such relations appear.OBVIOUSLY NO. SO DEFINITELY, NO HYPOTHESIS, ARGUMENT, ASSUMPTION, THEOREM, NUMBERS, ARITHMETIC IS FEASIBLE WITHOUT AND OUTSIDE THR CONSCIOUSNESS.18 is prime is not a relative falsity. With or without consciousness 18 cannot be prime. Consciousness is needed only to accept that fact in some first person way.

> The more surprising thing is that we can derive the existence of all computations, including those supporting universal machines involved in rich and deep (intrinsically long) computations. They act as filter to differentiate the consciousness of the universal machine.

WE DERIVE THE EXISTENCE OF ALL COMPUTATIONS!! IT IS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH DERIVES THE EXISTENCE OF COMMUTATIONS. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE MACHINE?All universal digital machine “rich enough” (Löbian) can prove the existence of all computations. I think that they are as much conscious than you and me. But of course, only the first part of that statement is itself provable in “enough rich” arithmetical theories.> Again, the consciousness of the universal machine, abstracted from all its computations, cannot be identified with the cosmic consciousness, in public. It will be true from the cosmic point of view, but false from the terrestrial relative mundane third person view.

HOW COMMUTATIONS CAN HAVE ANY CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEIR OWN AS DISTINCT FROM CC OR OUT MUNDANE CONSCIOUSNESS?Computations are never conscious. But they can support a person (which lives in arithmetic) relativized in a context based on the work of some universal numbers. It is the person which is conscious,not the bodies or the representation in arithmetic per themselves.> At this place, the theorem of Solovay, which captures the true and the provable discourse of what the machine can prove and conceive about itself (in eventually eight senses), helps to disentangle all the subtleties.

BUT DUD THE THEOREM OF SOLOVAY ARISE OUT OF AND WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? OBVIOUSLY NOIt arises in the mind on specific Löbian digital number in arithmetic, but also in the mind of physical human beings. There is nothing weird here.You seem to want to intruse the meta level in the object level.>

>

>

> I ADD FURTHER THAT YOU CAN ASSUME 2 PLUS 2 -- 4 SINCE YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE OF DISCRETE ONTOLOGY OF DIFFERENT TYPES -- 2 TREES, 2 APPLES, 2 PROTONS.

>

>

> Yes, I took the numbers from the empirical reality, and I even took the notion of “if … then … else” from the Lactose Operon (regulator gene) of the bacterium Escherichia Coli. Nature is quite inspiring.

> But, metaphysically, or theologically, I cannot be aware of an ontology. I can only be aware of an experience, or maybe a person. I might wake up in two seconds, and laugh of myself having taken for granted the trees, the appels, and the protons.

YES, METAPHYSICALLY OR THEOLOGICALLY, YOU MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF ANY ONTOLOGY. BUT YOU HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF AN OBJECTIVE PHENOMENAL REALITY OF DISCRETE NATURE COUNTLESS OF TIMES RIGHT FROM THE TEEN AGE, YOU OPENED THR EYES. AS YOU OPENED THE EYES FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN THE BODY OF YOUR MOTHER. SO THE NUMBER 1 MIGHT HAVE ARISEN AS A UNIQUE COGNITIVE THOUGHT IN YOUR MIND/ CONSCIOUSNESS.THEN AS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN ANOTHER NURSE/AUNTIE IN THE VICINITY OF YOUR MOTHER, NUMBER 2 MIGHT HAVE ORIGINATED IN YOUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS. BUT THIS ARITHMETIC THOUGHT IS UNIVERSAL AND UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THIS ARISES EQUALLY AND UNIVERSALLY IN ALL SANE LIVING ORGANISMS, AT LEAST HUMANS. ABOUT ANIMALS, I DON'T KNOW.

HAD YOU OPENED YOUR EYES IN A VACCINE DEVOID OF ANY OBJECTIVE PHENOMENAL OBJECT ABD PASSED YOUR ENTIRE LIFE IN THAT VACUUM, MIGHT BE NUMBER 1, 2, 3,...COULD NEVER WOULD HAVE TAKEN BIRTH IN YOUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS.I am not sure I understand “objective phenomenal object”. If it is phenomenal, it is first person, or subjective. At most it is first person plural, like with the consequence of mechanism, but also from QM-without-collapse, where populations of machines are duplicated “together” so that they share the first person indeterminacy, making it looking objective but is still subjective.

> At least, with mechanism, the dreams obeys laws, and it leads to a sort of measurable degrees of relativity.Quantum mechanics seems to confirms we belong to a very solid sharable type of dream.

I PROPOSE THAT IS NOT THE DREAMS. WHICH OBEYS LAWS. BUT LAWS GOVERNING THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICALITY FIND THEIR EXPRESSION IN NUMBERS, ARITHMETIC AND COMPUTATIONS.I do not assume physicality. If the physics in the head really depart from the observation, then I will consider the possibility of primary matter, but today’s evidences is that there is no discrepancy.

I STOP AT THIS STAGE STAGE SINCE IT HAS ALREADY BECOME TOO LONG AND I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TYPE LONG MESSAGES ON CELLPHONE.OK, best,Bruno

VINOD SEHGAL

>

>

>

> SO YOUR ASSUMPTION OF 2 PLUS 2 -- 4 IS CONTINGENT ON FOLLOWING

>

> I) EXISTENCE OF SOME PRIOR CONSCIOUSNESS

>

>

> That is correct, at the meta-level. Mechanism, in the quasi-operational sense of saying “yes” to the digitalist doctor, assume not just consciousness, but a sort of invariance for local transformation of what supports the corresponding computations.

> We can be neutral long before trying to identify the cosmic consciousness with any thing.

>

>

>

>

> II) YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH SOME DISCRETENESS PERTAINING TO ONTOLOGY OF ANY TYPE EXISTING IN NATURE.

>

>

> If Nature get a primitive ontological feature, you will need complex actual infinities to attach univocally a consciousness to that ontology. It can make sense, but it makes things much more complicated. I prefer to avoid any ontological commitment before some evidence.

> I give a way to test this. The idea is very simple: compare the physics in the head of all universal numbers with “Nature”.

>

>

>

>

> NONE OF THE NUMBERS ARE INCONCEIVABLE OUTSIDE THE ABOVE TWO VIZ CONSCIOUSNESS AND DISCRETENESS.

>

>

> I guess you mean CONCEIVABLE.

> The Digital Mechanist hypothesis relates consciousness and discreteness in a way which explains the numbers real experience of the illusion of the continuum (including the physical qualla and quanta) and of its lawful local persistence.

> You must understand that the mathematician thought the natural numbers were simpler than the real numbers, but after Gödel we understand that we understand nothing. The main reason is due to the mess brought by the universal numbers. And it is worst from the first person perspective related to the numbers involved in the universal relation, as they are indeterminate on infinitely many computations.

> I am open to the idea that only some Nature can solve the consciousness/matter relation problem, but then it will have to do it through non Turing emulable means, nor using the infinities already met by the first person associated to the universal number in arithmetic.

> All what I say is that this is testable, and somehow Everett formulation of QM, and Einstein formulation of GR confirms up to now this Pythagorean theology. I think.

>

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>> iii) In the absence of any discrete physical ontology, numbers lose any meaning.

>>

>> Why? On the contrary, we can explain in all details why numbers brings meaning to their relation, by their highly sophisticated theology that they have already provided to us, even if it is throughout difficult math papers.

>

> ALL YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS ARE BORNE OUT OF THE PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN YOU AND YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF DISCRETENESS IN NATURE.

>

>

> The theory is given by its axioms and rules. Its origin is not part of it.

> Its origin is double.

> It is contingent for the here and now, and it is a theorem of arithmetic, for the out of time and space, by (again) Gödel’s arithmetization of the metamathematics, through some digital machine (of the declarative type) embedding itself in arithmetic. The “theory” of the logician are digital machines, sort of “toy-mathematicians” which appears to have a quite rich and testable theology.

>

>

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>> It is true that numbers are unique in the sense that they are equally applicable to the discrete ontology of any type -- 1 tree, 1 proton, 1 apple etc but it is also true that they should definitely pertain to some discrete ontology.

>>

>> Yes, the infinite set {0, 1, 2, 3, …}. The mind and the matter comes from their relations.

>

> THE INFINITE SET OF 1,2,3,4, ...IS BORN IN OUR MINDS AS SOME ASSUMPTIONS SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY

> I) HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF 1,2,3,4,... DISCRETE OBJECTS IN NATURE

>

> Us? Yes with “us” = the humans. Not really with “us” the universal numbers.

> Nature and humans are the phenomenological product of infinitely many arithmetical relations.

> So, once we assume the natural numbers, with their elementary laws, everything else is either redundant, or a falsity. (Again, when we assume Mechanism: this is a meta-theorem).

>

>

>

> II) IDENTIFIED THESE OBJECTS THRU SOME UNIQUE COGNITIVE MECHANISM.

>

>

> *all* cognitive mechanism are implemented, in the sense of Church and Turing, in elementary arithmetic.

>

>

>

>

> THIS IS THIS UNIQUE COGNITIVE MECHANISM OF IDENTIFYING THE DISCRETE OBJECTS WHICH APPEARS THRU NUMBERS AS A DEFAULT.

>>

>>

>>

>> When a number 1 or a relation 1+1=2 arise in mind ( 1+1=2 is also a universal assumption produced in minds), immediately question arises as to the number 1 or relation 1+1 pertains to what? 1 tree or 1 apple or 1 protons.

>>

>> “1+1=2” is produced in the mind, but that does not imply that 1+1 would be different from 2 is they were no mind.

>

> BUT FOR THE MIND, THERE CAN'T BE ANY EXISTENCE OF 1 OR 1 PLUS 1 --2. SO THERE CAN'T BE ANY QUESTION OF 1 PLUS 1 EQUAL OR DIFFERENT THAN 2. OUTSIDE OF OUR MIND,

>

> Why?

> It is simpler to make a theory of mind from elementary arithmetic, knowing that it is Turing universal, than justifying that 1+1=2 by the psychology. Related to neural nets having evolve for long period after an asteroid smash their predators. The long explanation, if made more formal will be shown using already the assumption of the number relations.

>

>

>

> THERE MAY EXIST SOME DISCRETE OBJECTS.

>

> You mean in Nature? But if Nature is the criteria of truth, then all you need is to assume a non-computationalist theory of mind.

> I am a Platonist: I am quite skeptical about what I don’t see, but I am even much more skeptical about what I can see.

>

>

> BUT HOW MANY THESE OBJECTS? THIS CAN'T EXIST IN NATURE ON ITS OWN. THIS WILL TAKE BIRTH WHEN OUR MINDS WILL START IDENTIFYING WITH THE DISCRETE OBJECTS. ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THR DISCRETE OBJECTS BY OUR MIND, NUMBERS WILL ARISE IN OUR MINDS AS PART OF SOME UNIQUE COGNITIVE THOUGHT.

>

>

> No problem, but you will need special infinities in both mind and matter, and that is quite speculative to me.

> Note that I use the numbers because people are familiar with them. I could use any Turing universal system instead, for the basic ontology (the primitive terms). With the combinators, the “theory of everything” is even shorter:

> Kxy = x

> Sxyz = xz(yz)

> See my previews post, but it is not important. Just that I want people idolasing the numbers, like some pythagoricians did. From the two equations above, I can also prove the existence of all computations, and of the universal combinators and actually of the universal numbers, etc.

> I told you that eventually “cosmic consciousness” and “arithmetic” are deeply related, but it is dangerous to assert it without much caution, as those relations can be proved to be part of the non-communicable by the self-referentially correct machine. We can’t enforce an idea which can only be experienced, or we will prevent it. But even here I say too much. It all belongs to G* minus G. G* \ G captures what is true only without saying, which is a vast space for any universal machine/person.

> Best regards,

> Bruno

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>> Had there been no discrete object like a tree or apple or protons, number 1 would have also never taken birth in our consciousness/mind. Without our consciousness/minds and discrete objects, number 1 or 2, number 2 could never have come into existence.

>>

>> There is no proton, or hangs like that, except in our mind (our = us the Löbian number). It is easier to explain the illusion of the proton from mathematics and the mechanist theory of mind, than to explain what is a number in term of protons.

>>

>>

>>

>> iv) So numbers automatically come into existence as part of some of our unique cognitive

>> capability when our conscious minds have an interface with the discrete physical ontology of any type.

>>

>> That is consistent with non-mechanism, but many tings are consistent then. That is the problem of non-mechanism. It explains too much things, and start from the very difficult things.

>>

>>

>>

>> This is on the similar lines that a poem burst out from the mind/heart of a poet when his conscious minds have an interface with some beautiful flower or a river or any other natural scene. But here there is the difference While poem arises in the conscious hearts/minds of only a selected few. Numbers arise universally in the minds of all and that too in the same manner. In this way, number is a unique and universal cognitive capability

>>

>> I am glad you say this.

>>

>>

>> v) Just image the existence of some says 10 trees in a jungle. Trees or jungle don't have any concept of 10 (trees) in itself. So there is no number 10 by itself. When a conscious observer passes thru the jungle that he ( his consciosuness.conscious minds) has an interface with the trees that number 10 arises in his mind. There is all the likelihood that if the person is quite illiterate that number 10 may not come into existence at all.

>>

>> OK. But the tree is what I want to derive from the numbers.

>>

>>

>>

>> To say that number 10 existed even without 10 physical trees and conscious minds.consciousness is an absurd since for the existence of anything i) some ontological 'substance: is required

>>

>> I don’t see why. I asked you before, but saying that a material ontology is needed is just an act of faith toward Aristotle, or dualist Sankia.

>>

>>

>> and numbers per se lack any ontological substance

>>

>> With helps to explain that ontological substance exists only in the mind of the (Turing) universal numbers. You need to be aware that arithmetic contains all computations, and not just their description, but the true relations making them into computations.

>>

>>

>>

>> ii) To authenticate or establish the existence of anything, consciousness/conscious minds are required and numbers lack any consciousness.conscious minds.

>>

>> I agree. But something can exist without being authenticate by a conscious being: example: the numbers. Even if the entire physical universe disappear (which makes no sense as it is a product of the number, but let us say) 1+1 is till equal to 2, even if we can no more torture the kids with them.

>>

>>

>>

>> In view of above, the fundamentality of numbers without conscious minds and discrete physicality is logically ruled out.

>>

>> Certainly not. They are rules out from the metaphysics of Aristotle only, but that is why I insist to come back to Plato. There are no evidence for a material ontology, only for a material phenomenology, and then with computationalism, the material phenomenology cannot assume primary matter, as that notion has no more meaning.

>> We are coherent Vinod. We just make quite different assumption. I assume that the brain functions like a machine, and you assume the contrary. But there will no conscious robot in your theory, because they will offer you my refutation, and it will be correct if you are willing to accept that they are conscious.

>> Bruno

>>

>>

>>

>> Vinod Sehgal

>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ralph Frost <ralph.frost@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> Dear Bruno,

>> The Lobian machines are in agreement. .-)

>> Where you write, """And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).""", and Googling your breadcrumb of "boolean topoi", to get to another similarly named thread: https://www.britannica.com/topic/foundations-of-mathematics/The-quest-for-rigour#ref412262 ....

>> Roughly, if all boolean topoi are Lobian, then, since magnetic tetrahedron ~are a constructed boolean topos, you get (have given) the proof you say you and the other Lobians need.

>> This carries over, on a good day according to my ~slipshod logic, to nested structured~duality, by virtue of standard boolean labeling being considered as [true,false] where as the underlying [attraction,repulsion] is present in the formative, foundational ~magnetic tetrahedral analog math. Both are or reflect a similar or roughly equivalent (structured) duality, but use slightly different terms and conjure different but mostly equal concepts within the various linguistic communities.

>> I would go out a little further on the thin ice to point out that our human ability to assess true from false (particularly after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil), is highly over-rated. We greatly admire what is true, or claim to, yet ourselves and our surroundings are also deeply nested repulsive and attractive structures and generally, we cannot tell the difference between the two with great certainty. About the only absolute we can find is that repulsion is ~truly attraction with one-half spin (and vise versa). Yet, we can observe and agree that, say, balanced attractive-repulsive units within a state, such as n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, are more stable and self-organizing than other states, and thus, both externally on the tabletop, and internally within similar (sp^3 hybridized) carbon-water-based units, will, to us (who are doing internal representations and assessments in the cwb units) always "make more sense" to us and/or will persist, as we like to call it, as "true", more so than units being unstable and "~false". Considering attraction as love, and perhaps depending on one's faith, we also still find ourselves nested within one ~spin-structured attractive field.

>>

>> Here, of course, I am winging it just based on the assumption or the *feel* that magnetic tetrahedra are boolean topoi and both are instances of nested structured~duality.

>> I take these liberties, in part because of things I read on the Internet, for instance, "To a modern logician, a mathematical structure is precisely this: a set of abstract entities with relations between them." attributed to Max Tegmark in https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ .

>> Here he advocates picking a structure (set of abstract entities) and one or more dualities (relations between them), which qualifies, close enough, as constructing yet another instance of nested structured~duality.

>> Similar connections are with notions of Donald H. Hoffman as in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

>> and with notions of Andy Clark https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10404 on Predictive coding and our uses of storing 'information', etc., in the structure of our bodies and in the environment.

>> Considering these persons' perspectives, along with noting the typical instances of "simple machines" in classical physics, vaguely, I may be beginning to see some sense developing in how it is that working through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron (n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4) provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states and also a feel for the pattern(s) in our make-up which allow us to bobble along, and survive in the local variable mass-density.

>> Again, call it a non-classical simple machine, or a poor man's unified field ~equation and/or an initial (analog math) ~equation of quantum gravity, but there is some empirical validity that comes via analog math expression that is simply not available, or not available/developed yet, via the abstract math trade route.

>> The first step is to establish physical intuition and spark creative imagination.

>> Thanks for your help.

>> Best regards,

>> Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

>> Changing the scientific paradigm.

>> https://magnetictetrahedra.com

>> Focus on the breath.

>>

>>

>>

>> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:44:42 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>>

>> On 15 Feb 2018, at 04:21, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Bruno,

>> Thanks for your reply and insights. I somewhat grasp the idea that from your perspective, I would ~require or accept a substitution level ~below sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding.

>>

>> From the perspective of Mechanism, yes. That would follow from other hypothesis, including physical assumption or not.

>> Some real number are not computable, you always add a non computable element to Shcroedinger equation, or quicker in the wave e^iHt, by using a H based on a non computable number. Amazingly perhaps, such modification does not change the physical appearances. If you change the linearity: the appearances will change drastically (both just with mechanism and QM-(without collapse).

>> Some might doubt your sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level (of substitution) and requires the much more expensive strings-branes level, and with 10^(10^100) decimals accurate, and this for the local cluster of galaxies.

>> Now, a curious facts is that the natural numbers, just in virtue of their true arithmetical relations do mimic those approximations, at all levels allowing a digitalisation, and indeed, the “real experience” is not obtained by any-one emulations of those approximations, but by the infinitely many one realised in virtue of 2+2=4 & Co.

>>

>>

>> However, I still have an impression that the instance of nested structured~duality that you are working with in your mechanism/substitution storyline involves assumptions about numbers and arithmetic as ~fundamentals which actually are not correct or true, or true enough to support your proposals.

>>

>> If you take the time to study the details, you should understand that I start from the Digital Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science, and deduce from that that arithmetic is enough. Elementary arithmetic is sufficient and necessary, although you can effectively start from any universal machinery. Technically, with my students, I start from many different universal machinery, to avoid the idolatry of any of them.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> This certainly could be my abstract math-ignorance biases showing, but my impression is numbers and number theories are like a type of specialized, relational language which is very handy for approximating sustenance needs.

>>

>> Before Gödel we thought we could secure the Infinite, used in analysis, set theories, algebra, physics, by solid constructions using only (finite) numbers.

>> After Gödel we realize that we have to use the help of the infinite to keep calm and control of the number themselves.

>> The pythagorean heaven is full of storms, turbulence, unbounded complexity and unbounded degrees of unsolvability.

>> Analysis, and somehow physics are simplifications of the number reality. A sort of projective view of arithmetic as seen from inside, and from an 1p view.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> As well, ALL of the numerical relations present in nature, from my perspective or in my opinion, are 100% entangled with and arise from ~physical arrangements.

>>

>> You have of course the right to assume this, but usually the numbers are conceived in a much easier and precise way, not involving physics, but involving some laws of thought (logic) we can agree on that subject, like with the Robinson axioms I gave you already.

>> One of my goal is to understand the term physical from simpler things that I can conceive, and the computationalist hypothesis provides an opportunity to test a theory which explains the physical appearances without assuming a physical universe.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> That is, like particle-wave, numbers can not be peeled away into an idealized separate 'numbers' realm or category -- separated from the artifacts they associate with or relate to.

>>

>> That is true, but the “causality” or “explainability” is simpler from going to natural numbers to their beautiful dreams and nightmares, than to go from anything extracted from the appearances, except repeatability itself, to explain the numbers. In my opinion.

>>

>>

>>

>> People certainly do it, and to great advantage, but this ability is a feature of reality

>>

>> Which one? At some point, any serious metaphysics must provides its theory in a universally accepted language, which means in either first order logic, or interpreted in a theory admitting itself an interpretation in first order or second order logic.

>> And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).

>>

>>

>> being nested structured~duality and where people can create instances of nested structured~duality even to the extremes.

>>

>> ?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ymmv (your mileage may vary), on this notion.

>>

>> I am an extremely simple mind. “Nested structured-duality” means almost everything to me without adding some precision, especially once you said it is primitive. You lost me there.

>> I have to go. I might try to answer some point below, but be patient for possible delays. We might win some times if you study well the reasoning in 8 steps. I claim nothing but consequences of mechanism. Eventually, the physical science makes much more sense viewed as an internal projection in arithmetic. (Sometimes I guess that Number Theory will be the “winner”, but that is not necessarily the case. Yet it would happen if the prime numbers mimic, from the 1p we can associate to them (assuming a number of thing) a quantum computer, like it seems to mimic already a “quantum chaotic regime”.

>> To be continued.

>> Best,

>> Bruno

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>

>> On 11 Feb 2018, at 13:40, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Hi, Bruno,

>> What Google says about "mechanism philosophy" is """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. “""

>>

>> That is not too bad.Of course “natural wholes” is a bit vague, but the idea is there. The essence of being a machine, or having a body being a machine, is that we can be fixed though substitution of parts.

>> Biology has always been my source of inspiration for mechanism, as biological bodies replace their constituents all the time. Few atoms last for more than seven years in the body, according to some sources.

>>

>> [rf] You see it as "relace their parts", I see it as "sustain structure" or "sustain nested structured~duality", 0r 'sustain structural-energetics", which, I suppose, has more of a relational flare. Also, there is the difference, I think, in biological organisms where organisms are running a synergetic transformation of both "replacing parts" AND "collecting energy". That is, in the process of collecting energy, in our aerobic biological case, here on the flip-side of photosynthesis, ~we necessarily have a complementary ~flow of replacement parts, and, in my storyline, as we also sustain an internal structurally coded representation (approximation) of relevant features of surroundings.

>> Machine mechanism, OTOH, I see as focused on replacing worn mechanisms while separately locating/ acquiring charged batteries. So the two functions are both non-integrated replacements. The two are different.

>>

>> Is that the storyline you assume when you say you "assume mechanism”?

>>

>> Yes.

>>

>> It is one instance of nested structured~duality.

>>

>> Can you give me an instance of something which is not a nested structured-duality, and explain why? Sometimes it looks you apply the term to thing, but here you apply it to a believe and I fell lost in my attempt to grasp what you mean.

>>

>> [rf] First, I do apply it to "things" and "beliefs" because I underst

>

> --

> ----------------------------

> 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 Archi To view this discussion on the web visit

> For more options, visit

## No comments:

## Post a Comment

Leave a comment