Фрагм. беседы со Стефаном, таксистом, США и Бруно (изобретателем машины богословия), кибернетиком университета Иридия, Брюссель

Аватар пользователя Andrei Khanov
Систематизация и связи
Философия науки и техники
Hi Stephan. I don’t speak English, and Google translator is not accurate. People also do not understand each other when the contexts of the terms they use are different. Understanding is based on the use of the same contexts. These are eternal questions and eternal answers to them. People are lying. The language is not accurate. But, this obstacle can be overcome. The answer is very simple. Language is only a part of thinking - the meaning of the form of an idea. We communicate not in words, but in signs. The other part of the sign is the unconscious. Between them is the degree of reliability of the meaning of sleep by speech. Before speaking, it is necessary to find the unity of all parts of the sign - discourse. This is the problem of the unity of the fragmented. Each person stores part of the world’s mind. There are many discourses. They are one and the same, but they are different and are at war with each other. I do not have to explain anything to you. We are not here to go crazy playing a fast university. Misunderstanding is the problem of one who does not understand. Helping is to share the life force. This is difficult to do if the interlocutor is annoyed by your words. I tested the intellectual level. I understand everything. Read about: Confucian abyss of misunderstanding by people and creativity as a bridge over this abyss. Speech Theory of Plato. Combinatorics of the stages of thinking. Contradictions and decisions. Speech analytics by Aristotle. The secret of a reliable sign of speech. Question and answer have one basis - syllogism. Dialogue is the search for such a basis or stupidity and a lie. Taoist combinatorics of the elements of thinking. Goethe's great spirit formula. Semiotics as a theory of speech signs is a repetition of the theory of terms from Aristotle. Theory of discourse. Theory of the concept. The philosophy of the future from Richard Rorty is the simplest of the list. The answer precedes the question. But usually a person does not see this and argues about nothing. The solution to the problem is the mutual dissolution of the answer question. Man possesses knowledge from the beginning, but our thinking is paradoxical; we do not want to know this. Simplify, fake, replace with signs, forget. But remember. The solution to such a contradiction is our mind. The solution method is a concept - the unity of the contradictory. A concept is a new mental space on the coordinate axes of contradictions. It is a myth. It was with him that our mind began.

11:02

Вы ответили Stephen
 
"Words are part of a sign. A person can do something important, but not understand it. And vice versa. Only the relationship of word and deed is evaluated."

Evaluated by what and by what procedure? Without that specification, your entire construction falls apart. The earlier attempts that I made fell on deaf ears. I assume responcibility for that; silly me, assuming that I could get a complex argument across while at work driving a taxi... Pffft. Yeah, that was a dumb move.
Nevertheless, you have my full attention now, @Andrei Khanov, let's have a conversation!

How is it non-contradictory, in all modes!, to posit that a language can 'talk about itself' - such that proofs of the properties of the language can obtain, and most importantly evaluated in that language?

We need users of the language. No?

Let's start there. What is a Language User in your thinking?

№2. Google translator did not help me immediately understand your words. When translated into Russian, a complete billiard is obtained. I translated them several times until Google left just one sentence.

How can the properties of a language be identified and, most importantly, evaluated in that language?

Oh, it is very simple! This is the theory of Aristotle, she is more than 2500 years old.

You must specify a coordinate system:

1) Height (form of idea, type of utterance):
1-- the bottom is a denial of something or an icon,
2-- the middle is an example of an idea or metaphor,
3-- the top is the affirmation of something or a symbol.

2) It is long (sense, essence or "premise"):
-1- neighbor is private, private interest, maxim of Kant,
-2- the average is the "face of the fact" of the presence of the idea of ​​a form, the recognition of the "fact" of it,
-3- the distant is a general, imperative of Kant, recognition of the power of such a law of the law.

Words = form of idea + meaning of this form. Total "sense form". It is a signifier. Aristotle has a "term." But, the term is not a sign, for a sign it is still necessary to determine the categorical nature of speech.

But, words are just a tool, about intended signifier idea. People often forget this and therefore their words are empty. Reason restores this connection.

3) The degree of meaning of the idea in words (context):
-1 hypothesis, question, accusation of contradiction,
--2 dicent, concept (unity of contradictions), art image, consensus, syllogism,
--3 argument for the absence of contradictions.

Only 27 terms. This is Aristotle.

You can build a language matrix. Here 27 characters are reduced to 10 types of characters. Each type of sign implies replicas - rearrangement of numbers in places. This is Charles Pierce. But he did not open the matrix. This is a special unitary group of the matamatic Sophus Lee. Physicists use this to classify particles, 1, 2, 3 - quarks.

111 113 133 333
112 123 233
122 223
222

Talking, people combine their signs. As a result, either a new sign of the same set of signs is obtained, or not. The first is mutual understanding (syllogism), the second is stupidity and falsehood.

Signs only indicate to us what we already have in the soul. Language is a signal.

There are other language coordinate systems. They all come together.

There is a new matrix of 99 signs.

Brett Oda

Brett Oda

Plato is old hat.
Вы ответили Brett
 
You are just a child who has not read Plato himself, but dares to judge the unread. Plato said it right. Modern philosophy only revives his words - in modern language. You do not belong here. To you in kindergarten. If you eavesdrop on these speeches, then listen in silence. Sorry - you are not the subject of conversation.
Brett Oda

Brett Oda

brutal
Brett Oda

Brett Oda

 
GIPHY
 
 

Просмотрел Brett Oda в 11:16

13:40

Bruno Marchal

Bruno Marchal

Plato remains far in advance compared to Aristotle and his followers. Aristotle is a great scientist, as he made both his physics and his theology precise enough to be tested? Galileo refuted his physics, and the universal Turing machine refute his theology. Plato is more "modern" than ever, and I think that we will leave the Middle-Age, and transform the Renaissance when neoplatonist theology will come back to the faculty of science.
Nice cat video, though, which illustrates nicely the natural numbers 
Вы ответили Bruno
 
The continental version of postmodernism is neoplatonism. The theory of discourse (Pierre Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Goethe and Lacan) is the development of the theory of the stages of speech of Plato. Nothing new. But Parminides, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - also did not say anything new. They only revived the myth of the human mind. Forgotten by then. Retold in new words of his era. The theory of the new concept of Gilles Deleuze is the development of the theory of the soul of Plato. Nothing new. The American revival is based on Aristotle's analysis. Semiotics, a special unitary group, the theory of quarks - this is all a retelling of Aristotle. Nothing new. The American version of postmodernism - neopragmatism, also includes Confucius in the circle of revived knowledge. Nothing new. All this was stated 50 years ago. And it was forgotten. Now is the time to revive the myth again. To know what the Theosophical Machine is? In addition to the announcement of its creation. In practice, read at least one of her own text? If I understand correctly what it is - then nothing new - maybe it repeats the matrix of Aristotle. Like everyone who has a mind.
Bruno Marchal

Bruno Marchal

I take Plato and the neopythagoricians, and the neoplatonist as the last scientist. They search the truth, and the original question has never been about the existence of God (which exists by definition), but of the existence of the physical universe. Aristotle is the one coming with the first answer to that question (the answer "yes"), but he missed the "dream argument". Today, we discover that the universal number have a neoplationician theology, which is testable, because physics is a subbranch of that theology, and indeed, modern physics confirms it. We can say that we have serious empirical and theoretical reason to doubt that the physical universe is all there is, but a common sharable number sort of dream (computation seen from inside). Alas, few people seems aware that elementary arithmetic executes all computations (I have been asked to eliminate all explanations on this in both my Belgian and French thesis, because this was considered as too much well known, but since my defence of thesis, this is no more taught, and I am afraid this is now rather hidden, and no more well known). With mechanism, the charge is reversed, it is those who believe in a primitive physical reality which have to provide some evidence(s), We should of course not confuse the evidence for a physical reality (which are abundant) with evidences for a primary, primitive, physical reality (there are none, actually that is what Plato understood).
Вы ответили Bruno
 
I take Plato and the neopythagoricians, and the neoplatonist as the last scientist. They search the truth, and the original question has never been about the existence of God (which exists by definition), but of the existence of the physical universe. Aristotle is the one coming with the first answer to that question (the answer "yes"), but he missed the "dream argument". Today, we discover that the universal number have a neoplationician theology, which is testable, because physics is a subbranch of that theology, and indeed, modern physics confirms it. We can say that we have serious empirical and theoretical reason to doubt that the physical universe is all there is, but a common sharable number sort of dream (computation seen from inside).
Alas, few people seems aware that elementary arithmetic executes all computations (I have been asked to eliminate all explanations on this in both my Belgian and French thesis, because this was considered as too much well known, but since my defence of thesis, this is no more taught, and I am afraid this is now rather hidden, and no more well known). With mechanism, the charge is reversed, it is those who believe in a primitive physical reality which have to provide some evidence(s), We should of course not confuse the evidence for a physical reality (which are abundant) with evidences for a primary, primitive, physical reality (there are none, actually that is what Plato understood).
Plato and Aristotle must be read in the original. Yes, Plato (like Pythagoras and Confucius) referred to the fifth speech the anti-speech of sleep. But Taoism corrected this. Element 8. Aristotle found a new foundation - identifying the 6 limits of the space of speech as thinking. This is a cube or surface of a sphere. Dimension does not matter - this is a detail of the sphere. The theories of Taoists, Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, nuclear physics are one and the same. Everything else is their simplified retelling to fools. Of course, the way we understood Aristotle is not complete, there is an invisible world, But if you understand exactly what Aristotle said, he talked about the matrix of opposites, in which there is a place both the Galileo-Newton mechanical universe and everything else that physics does not describe now.

Andrei Khanov

The formal logic of Theophrastus is his semantic hallucination when reading Aristotle's analytics. Show me at least one person who read both analysts from cover to cover and understood everything? How many years did it take him? They read retellings ... and hallucinate. Theophrastus understood almost nothing and came up with his own analytics as a fanfiction of Aristotle's quantum logic. The time when we understand the whole point of Aristotle's analytics has not yet come. We are on the way to this. I understood analytics like this: I I A O O E O O E Our words (dialogues, disputes) are reliable only when we talk about what we know. Formally, this can be written as a term matrix. When the average is in the matrix.
Bruno Marchal

Bruno Marchal

Remind me what is I I A, O, O, E, etc. I don't know Theophrastus. For me the main debate is in defending physicalism, or abandoning physicalism (for mathematicalism; or the Mechanist Neo-neo-pythgoranism which is arithmeticalism). The question is "what is the absolute reality", and with mechanism, the answer is that any Turing universal machinery would do the job. I use arithmetic only because everyone is familiar with it. I lost my fait in a material universe since long (very long).

Просмотрел Bruno Marchal в 14:51Просмотрел Michael Papaiacovou в 15:15

16:04

Вы ответили Bruno
 
According to Aristotle's theory, the space of speech is three-dimensional and has limits, like the faces of a cube.

Top and bottom is the type of utterance or form of idea. Genesis of idea. But there is an average.

3__ Top - a statement, symbolic.
1__ Bottom - negation, literal (iconic).

Near and far - the premise or meaning (essence). The essence of being an idea. Interpretation of the form of an idea.

1 Near - private, for some (not for all) - private interest, maxim from Kant.
3 Far - general (for all), imperative from Kant.

Left and right - the degree of categorization of the statement (meaning or signification, the degree of certainty of what was said). How accurately the words indicate their cause - the idea.

__1 Left - hypothesis, self-irony, uncategorized, possibly inherent. question. Indication of a contradiction.
__2 Average - necessary inherent. Dicent. Artistic image. Concept. The unity of the signifier and the signified. "Triumph is the unity of art and life" (Mikhail Bakhtin). “Consensus is the unity of question and answer” (Richard Rorty), dicent, this is Aristotle's syllogism.
__3 The right is precisely inherent, the argument, the answer to the question.

The term is the intersection of the type of utterance and premise.

A - general and affirmative
I - private and affirmative
E - General and Negative
O - private and negating

Theophrastus is the first nerd, the father of logic and classification. He lived 100 years later than Aristotle.

Theophrastus simplified Aristotle's theory of speech to simple logical operators. Threw out the third dimension of categoricality. He reduced the space of speech to a flat projection - one right side of the cube. We still use these operators of Theophrastus. Calling logical.

Вы ответили Bruno
 
Aristotle discovered the matrix of any language. This is the operating system of our mind. It is wherever a person opens his mouth. Physics is also a language. The same term matrix. 333 (555) A - anti-entropy (anti-momentum, t / ms) 133 (155) I - atomic substance (mt / s) 113 (115) O - single field (mts) 313 (515) E - anomalous atomic substance (st / m) Only 99 terms. Aristotle has 27. This is the division of each opposition into three or five or into any number of parts) This is the surface of a sphere. A person is able to see only a small part of it. In the center of the sphere is the annihilation point of opposites (physical vacuum, Logos, Idea) The scope of the sphere is 10 gradations: 1-photon, 10-neutrino, 100-electron, 1000-muon neutrino, e4-upper quark, and so on up to the Higgs e10-boson.
 
Bruno:
 
That seems still a bit to much physicalist to be coherent with mechanism, at least from the current knowledge. With mechanism, we get quantum logic, and symmetries, and some notion of subjective time, but we are still far from having a notion of space, or of particles. That is the difficulty of mechanist metaphysics, it really assumes only "2+2=4" and has to retrieve the necessity of the physical laws from there. What you say might, or might not, help in the intermediate middle of the path.
 

Hi Bruno

I understood you. But, I dare to point out to you a simple and obvious fact, obvious to any true philosopher or artist. If there is no understanding of this fact, there is neither an artist nor a philosopher. One emptiness of the verbal pons.

Here is the fact:

There is no new knowledge, there is only oblivion and revival of the ancient myth of the human mind. If there is no this myth about the mind of man, there is no rational man.

Only madmen argue about the structure of the universe. Empedocles also noticed that this dispute only demonstrates the structure of the mind of the person himself. Reason is the universe, but what we see or do not see in life is part of it. The mind is bigger.

Aristotle said: Any question is an indication of a contradiction in the words of the interlocutor and any answer is an argument for the absence of such a contradiction. The main thing is that both the question and the answer have one basis. This basis is a consistent unity of question and answer lost by the debaters. Either they will find him and the dispute will cease as unnecessary, or this is a meaningless murmur and the debaters themselves do not understand what they are saying. That is what you call lost rationality.

Bruno:

I can agree, but it is still a bit fuzzy, so I cannot be entirely sure if we mean the same. I just want to be honest, and I am a simple mind, which is probably why I like Mechanism, which necessitates only to agree that x + 0 = x, and things like that, then I let the mystery re-appearing as naked as possible

Who does not have clarity? I understand everything.

If personally you are not sure about something, you should honestly say "I do not understand." And do not look for contradictions in the words of the interlocutor. Do you agree?

You say: "we are still far from having a notion of space, or of particles" - but, I’m not everything, I personally understand everything both time and space and particle. I set out my views earlier. This is not the final result, this is a stage on the eternal path to understanding the design of nature.

What man calls knowledge is an echo of the myth of his rationality. These reflections of the mind are fragmented and unevenly distributed among all people. But this fragmentation of knowledge does not mean its absence.

Physical laws? Correctly call them terms (combinations of the three primary elements: mass, time and distance) - just semiotic signs. These are elements of the human language about nature, not nature. Nature is continuous. Signs are a language. They have a structure, it is natural.

Physics is a hallucination. The matrix of physical terms is simple and straightforward. But the path to it was long and difficult. When there is no understanding that a physical law is just a sign indicating nature - it took centuries to discover every new sign. Now all the signs are open and there is a new question? And what do we want to say in this language to each other?

It’s already impossible to justify a lie by not understanding the matrix.

Send a better link to the texts of your machine of theology, it is very curious that she told us specifically. Thank!

Bruno:

I am not sure to understand what you mean by matrix, but also I am not sure of your premise. I am a simple mind which eventually needs an equation or a formal theory to start with. That is made possible by the Digital Mechanist hypothesis. But nature does not exist per se, and cannot be referred to (unless conditionally). I am not sure why you say "do not look into the contradiction of the words of the interlocutor). I use Mechanism because it transforms the mind-body problem into a mathematical problem. I cannot use any term of physics, like time, space, mass, etc. Maybe those links can help for the machine theology":
Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132

Marchal B. Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, Dialogo Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
(available at
http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive/)

Thank! I Saved the links. I’ve already read something, I’ll read the rest.

But, these are just your words about the theological machine, the discourse of the university. but not the words of the machine itself, it must be assumed that it is beyond any discourse.

The theory of an object is not equal to an object.

If a theological machine exists, then what did she herself say?

The matrix is ​​easy. It is a myth. He is the foundation. Everything else is its parts. The unity of everything. There is no understanding of the matrix of reason - there is no reasonable person either. There is a monkey with an iPhone in one hand and a grenade in the other.

I would like to understand the operating system of the theological machine. Who knows, maybe this is the matrix? After all, a person has nothing.

an example of individual parts of a matrix is ​​the theory of everything, a unified field theory.

the matrix is ​​not about physics, but there is a physicist look at the matrix.

the matrix combines all physicists into a single system:
the mechanics of Galileo and Newton,
thermodynamics
electrodynamics
nuclear physics
physical chemistry
quat mechanics
quantum chromodynamics
standard model
and much more ... not yet open:
unified field theory,
theory of gravity.

Einstein did not create anything new, he just retold Newton. But he contributed to the matrix, the matrix theory is a logical development of the theory of relativity.

biology is the next step in interpreting the matrix

With Mechanism, the matrix is ​​entirely given by very elementary arithmetic, or even just the two laws Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz (yz). We have somehow just regressed since Pythagorus. But everything which could be physically correct must be justified by a statistics on all computations (which exists already in elementary arithmetic). It is like this:
NUMBER ==> DREAMS ==> PHYSICAL APPEARANCES (then human consciousness, human conception of numbers and human physics). We can use empirical physics to refute Mechanism, by comparing the physics in the head of the machine with what we observe, but we cannot postulate the physical, we have to derive it from the two equations above, or from x + 0 = x and similar.

 studied at the physics department of the university and am well acquainted with the discourse of the university. I have already substantiated my law on nature. That was said thousands of years ago. There was no opposition. But a conflict of discourses arose.

What you write about is what I call the Don Quixote Windmill. This is not indicated by God, but by man himself. The theory of an object is not equal to an object. This means that there is just that. University means social status and nothing more. All talk about science is for sucker.

Man himself will create confusion in his head.

In my firm belief, one can speak only when these windmills are defeated. If not, these are semantic hallucinations and meaningless mutterings. The interlocutor is not subjective. The introduction of knowledge about her in his own speech. Simply no.

The university is not interested in knowledge; its interest is an authoritative researcher (citation index). The days of Galileo and Newton are long gone. Science has long become fiction. It makes no sense to repeat the socially conditioned mantras of the university. They are reasonable, there is to understand their purpose.

The question is different, how do we live on? Someone does not understand this problem. Dot.

Some universities are not interested in knowledge, or are, but cannot do the research due to politics, or due to some sects/church/temple sort of clubs. Some can hide results, despite peer reviewed, published, and just because it does not fit with their personal conviction. Today, may people still believe that we can believe in both Mechanism (Descartes, Darwin) and in physics as fundamental science, but I have refuted this 40 years ago, and constructively, i.e. showing how the recover the appearance of the physical from the "psychology or theology" of numbers. It might be coherent or not with your ideas. If it is, it has to be derived from elementary arithmetic (or it needs to assume some amount of non-mechanism).

The problem is that instead of solving the problem, we just talk about it, this creates the problem.

Why is this happening? - meets the theory of the matrix. Through the sign of the matrix of reason in the soul, we eliminate the unreliability of words about the mind. Reason = words. This is a special sign. If he is not, there is nothing to talk about.

Reason manifests itself as a matrix. To not understand this is to not have clarity of thought.

I am glad that you understood something of your own 40 years ago.

But you are only talking about this event. How about the fact. I believe you, but the prelude dragged on, I want to hear what your soul, which has found a voice, says.

But I don’t hear anything. Some words about the theory of the object.

Let me tell the object itself. Words are just a language, a pointer to an object in the soul. Thank!

 

I read your article "Computational reformulation of the problem of the mind and body"

1. Your term "Plato theology" is embarrassing - Christianity is the icon of Platonism. Plato himself spoke of something else.

2. Plato and Aristotle spoke exactly about the same thing. Wandering Thomas Aquinas is the unity of both theories (Plato and Aristotle). Must read the originals. Differences arise only in retelling. This is a distinction of retelling, meaning hallucinations.

I continue reading, but doubt has already arisen in the basic thesis. I don’t see the problem you are solving. There is simply no problem. If there is a distortion of meaning in the rewriting of Plato and Aristotle. Then you must honestly say "my understanding of Plato, which I myself have not read ..."

 

In my opinion, there is another, much more interesting problem of semantic gallcinization when reading the retelling of Plato and Aristotle. This is probably the "loss of rationalism" that you are talking about. The solution is to read the original. Plato and Aristotle themselves described a matrix of thinking. Perhaps the matrix is ​​the machine of theology. The operating system of human thinking. The structure of the language.

I assume that you have found the mistake of the scribes, but you have associated such a mistake with Plato and Aristotle themselves. I will be glad to point you to this. It was not Plato and Aristotle who made the mistake, but their scribes.

Of course, there are many people who do not distinguish the text of Plato from its forgery and believe the loader. But, as a minimum, Michael and I do not belong to them. Why should we not solve our problem? At least to me?

If you solved this problem in your own way, then this is very good. At the university, this decision is called postmodernism. Congratulations! You have formulated your version of postmodernism.

But, the piquancy of the situation is that postmodernism is the revival of the teachings of Plato, the liberation of it from the distortions of the retellers. Postmodernism is 50 years old.

I come from biology. I identified myself with amoeba, and I was about deciding to become a biologist when I read Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" where I discover the universal machinery. Fortunately I discovered the little book by Nagel and Newman "Gödel's Proof", and I realised that arithmetic contains a universal machinery. I decided to study mathematics instead of biology, and got the result that if Mechanism is true, arithmetic is the theory of everything and there is no physical universe which can be assumed. Much later I have been told that my result was not original, and I searched what that meant, and eventually discovered Plato and the Neoplatonist which have a similar "theology". I use Plato and Plotinus since, mainly for pedagogical reasons, and to cite the predecessor and be honest. Since then, and with prohibition (a symptom of collective madness) I tend to believe that science is born with Pythagorus (-500) and science stopped with Damascius (+500) with the closure of Plato's academy, and the separation of theology/philosophy from science, leading to the Middle-age and obscurantism. To me Plato is just the doubt about the existence of the physical universe as an ontological thing. What I can explain (and prove) is that if we take Descartes (Watson!) Mechanism, then the theory of everything (mind and matter) has to be elementary arithmetic, and physics has to be entirely recovered from a statistic on infinitely many computations (which is what I found when I was a kid), and eventually I realise this is confirmed by quantum mechanics. I did have underestimated the attachement of my fellows for their belief in some primary physical universe, and they might be true, but then Mechanism has to be false. But up to now, in the technical details, the physical reality confirms the "theology of the machine" (the modal logics G and G*, and their intensional variants), so I find Mechanism plausible. With the Renaissance, the natural science have come back to Science, but theology/philosopy (the fundamental science by definition) remains in the hands of the charlatans (which explains the current obscurantism, which lasts since 1500 years). I am not sure that there is a revival of Plato. Most scientist and philosopher were unable to doubt physicalism and weak-materialism (the belief in some primary matter). I like precise statement and proof. The reason I like Digital Mechanism is that it makes the mind-body problem into a problem of mathematics, and it took me 30 years to solve it at the propositional level, and this enough to recover the propositional quantum logics (in my youth, I got the quantum computer well before I understood that empiricist physician were almost there). Most serious scientists understood my work, and made pressure so that I defend it in a PhD thesis. But I do have problem with materialist (and influant) philosophers, who I have never been able to met them, so it is only behind my back, and it has noting to do with science, but rather with the defence of the philosophical curriculum, which confines my "obscurantist" feeling for our current period. I think we will leave the Middle-Age, when non confessional theology is back to science, but this can take time.

Hi Bruno!
The mention of Godel is pleasing.

Nature is continuous. Of course, a person breaks it into opposites and coordinate axes, this is its matrix. But man himself connects opposites with a concept. This is our human mind, it is contradictory.

Of course there is collective madness, but there is reason, as the unity of all opposites.

Obscurantism is adjacent to postmodernism. Each in its place.

The revival of Plato is, believe more! The world is very large, not all people are crazy.

All are signs. Your message is the same. The sign counted and understood. But there is also a computer user called humanity. We are ourselves.

I’ll still say: you are telling the story of your spiritual discovery, but not this discovery itself. I believe you, you do not need to prove anything. Just tell me what the theology machine told you. I'm just curious.

And you need to prepare the exhibition. Otherwise, why did Mikhail gather us here. It is necessary to inform those who can understand what is understood by us. It is a duty.

I believe only in 0, 1, 2, 3, ... and the laws of addition and multiplication. from this I can explain how the hallucination of nature arise, why it obeys the (quantum) laws, why the quanta are different from the qualia, why Nature is (indeed) continuous, etc. and all this in a testable way. It is hard to sum up my work, as I have worked 30 years alone, and all what I do relies on Gödel's 1931 incompleteness result (and also his 1930 completeness theorem). What many people miss is that elementary arithmetic is Turing universal. If you are willing to believe that 1+1=2 in some absolute sense, then all computations exists in that sense, and the physical illusion/dream arise from the fact that we are disperse in infinitely many exemplars in the arithmetical reality, and the physical emerges from the statistics on all (relative) computations. I predicted quantum physics by myself a long time before I realised that experimental physicists were already there, so I tend to take it as a confirmation of mechanism, until now. I will think about a way to summarise this, but I can also give the references to my last papers (not mentioned in my university URL, which I should update since 2007...).

Спасибо! Конечно пришлите ссылки на статьи. Ваши работы очень интересны.

Теперь вы не один 

и здесь - не злобный университет, 

мы готовим выставку. Это не выставка слов. Но на ней Вы можете сказать: 

1, 2, 3, 4

1+0=1

И этого достаточно. Идея проявлена.

Hi Michael! Bruno and I agreed, the contours of the exhibition I understand. 1234 1 + 1 = 2. This is a "new theology." This is the name of the exhibition.

Now your thought is required:

where and how to organize the exhibition?

How to connect with the Greek language and philosophy?
It’s easy to connect with blockchain - these are its origins in ancient Greece.

I have an idea - let Bruno’s machine pronounce the text of the theory of Aristotle and Plato, and even better - Homer. And Marcos. The goal is one, to see life as it is - 1234 1 + 1 = 2.

Arithmetic poetry.

How does Renata devote to this topic?

Sound patterns are also good. But, this should be our sound 1234 1 + 1 = 2. Talk to the composer?

Will Andreas Zenonos help us all?

Where will we find the money?

And where is the gallery owner?

OK,

. Thanks for the kind words.
I thought I already gave them, but here are some of my last papers. Some are directly available, other needs institution passwords, but I can send them individually.

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132

Marchal B. Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, Dialogo Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
(available at

 

OK. Thank!
I will read articles

but the contours of the exhibition are already clear to me.

Send a photo of the machine of theology.

1234 1 + 1 = 2. This is a "new theology." This is the name of the exhibition.

I have an idea - let Bruno’s machine pronounce the text of the theory of Aristotle and Plato, and even better - Homer. And Marcos. The goal is one, to see life as it is - and this: 1234 1 + 1 = 2.

Arithmetic poetry.

Sound patterns are also good. But, this should be our sound 1234 1 + 1 = 2.