[Fis] Fwd: Unpleasant answer ? From Bruno Marchal Request for Aid in Translation

[Jerry LR Chandler]

FISers:

In response to the message posted below, I received the following response :

liugang-zxs at cass.org.cn

谢谢，我将尽快答复你的电子邮件！

In order to facilitate communication of information, a translation of the message would be helpful.

Cheers

jerry 


> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chandler at me.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> List, Bruno:
> 
> (My response to theMarch 13 message are interwoven in a red font.)
> 
>  While I appreciate the flow of concepts emerging from Bruno’s “poetry”, its guidance appears to exclude chemistry and biology.
> 
> We have something like:
> 
> Number(with + and *) => Number's dreams statistics => Physics => human biology
> 
> 
> Thus, Bruno’s  associations are not so clear to me.  
> 
> This provides evidence you have a sane mind :)
> 
> So, I will be a “spoil sport” and look toward a more “life-friendly” flow of both symbols and numbers with only a tad of poetry. 
>  
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal at ulb.ac.be <mailto:marchal at ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> The tensions between the computational natures of discrete and the “continuous” numbers haunts  any attempt to make mathematical sense out of scientific hypotheses. I am uncertain as to the logical implication of the “computationalist’s hypothesis" in this context.
> 
> 
> If you are aware of the notion of first person indeterminacy, it is not so difficult to understand how the appearance of the continuum can be explained to be unavoidable in the digital-mechanist frame. The physical reality will emerge from a statistics on infinities of computations (including many with Oracles). Amazingly, in the digitalist frame, it is the digital which remains hard to understand a priori, but the mathematics of self-reference gives important clue.
> 
> In my view, this is philosophy not related to the logic of the physics of the atomic numbers. 
> Each atomic number has an identity.
> That identity infers both mass and electricity and the corresponding set of predicates that respect the attributes of the individual form of matter.
> The computational logic of the chemical sciences is based on the coherence of the relations that couple these physical attributes into the metrology of chemical sciences. 
> The success of chemical computations on the atomic numbers is based on compositions of atomic numbers (generating functions) and the metrology of the emergence molecules, cells, organisms, human individuals. 
> 
> Bruno: How do you relate your methods of calculations to your identity?  Can you construct a clear narrative that states the necessary premisses? propositions? consequences?  Causal pathways? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the reference grounded in Curry’s combinatorial logic or otherwise? 
> 
> It does not. The reasoning is independent of any basic universal theory chosen. 
> 
> Both chemistry and biology are based on the chemical table of elements and the combinatorial compositions. 
> 
> 
> Provably so if we assume mechanism. Contrarily to a widely spread opinion: mechanism is not compatible with even quite weak form of materialism, or physicalism.
> 
> The connotations of the term “mechanism” varies widely from discipline to discipline.
> The sense of “mechanism” in chemistry infers an electrical path among the discrete paths of  illations that “glue” the parts into a whole.  By sublation, this same sense is used in molecular biology and the biomedical sciences. 
> 
> 
> Bruno, could you expand on your usage in this context?  
> 
> 
> Mechanism, as I use it, is the hypothesis that a level of digital substitution exist…
> 
> The events and processes of the chemical sciences are based on the atomic numbers.
> The “digits” of the atomic numbers are NOT substitutable for one another. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do the senses of “computationism" and “mechanism” refer to the material world, if at all?
> 
> 
> The notion of computation is born in pure mathematics,
> 
> Historically, it was just the opposite - computations gave rise to (im)pure mathematics?
> 
>  The "universal dovetailer argument" ---that you can found here for example:
> 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>
> 
> explains how the appearance of the material world has to emerge from all relative computations. 
> 
> This explanation is not extensible to chemistry and biology because of the perplexity of Coulomb’s Law. 
> 
> 
> God created the natural numbers, and saw that it was good.
> 
> Would it be more accurate to that “"God" created the internal creativity of the atomic numbers."
> 
> 
> I was just saying, albeit poetically indeed,  that  the "theory of everything", (still in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis), can't assume more than classical logic + the following axioms:
> 
> 0 ≠ (x + 1)
> ((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y
> x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
> 
> 
> Together with (just below):
> 
> 
> 
> Then she said: add yourself, and saw that is was good.
> 
> 
> x + 0 = x
> x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
> 
> And:
> 
> 
> Then she said: multiply yourself.
> 
> 
> x * 0 = 0
> x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x
> 
> And nothing else.
> 
> These sorts of “computations” are not possible with atomic numbers because the atomic  have a tri-partite semantic meaning.  “zero” is not defined.  “1” is hydrogen. Physical conservation laws negate the possibility of multiplication of 6*8 = 48  (Carbon related to oxygen as carbon monoxide.) 
> 
> 
> I think these counter-arguments are sufficient to justify my assertion that the logic of the atomic numbers differs from your views of numerical logic and your interpretation of computationalism  from chemical and biological computations, including brain dynamics.
> 
> The pragmatism of the chemical sciences is the basis of its success in biology, evolution, and indeed, consciousness.  This pragmatic perspective respects the physical law of conservation of electrical particles. 
> 
> So, our world views are radically different from one another. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20170318/9affb0c4/attachment.html>