On 29 Oct 2014, at 09:04, Peter Sas wrote:
I wonder if you know the work of the French philosopher Badiou.
There is a big mixture of good things and bad things, and eventually I
am not convinced.
He has built an entire ontology on set theory, taking the empty set
(or the void as dramatically calls it) as his most fundamental
concept. He takes over the Von Neumann derivation of math in terms
of set theory and then adopts a kind of mathematical Platonist
attitude, saying that all being is mathematical and hence 'founded
on the void'. I have grappled with his theory for a while but
concluded that although Badiou distances himself from Derrida etc.
he doesn't escape the 'French disease' in philosophy: using
impressive sounding but in the end arbitary terminology to cover up
the logical gaps in his theory.
Good point for you to see that.
Obviously I don't want to say that all French philosophers are like
that, but the likes of Derrida, Deleuze etc. have done so much
damage in philosophy, I feel.
OK. To be honest, I discovered Lewis Carroll by reading "La logique du
sens" by Deleuze, it is his best book. I discovered logic in Lewis
Carroll, and this made me discovering the little book by Gödel and
Newman on Gödel's theorem, and that book will change my mind about
which field is closer to my interest. I was hesitating at that time
between chemistry and biology, but thanks to Deleuze-Carroll-Nagel and
Newman, I will choose mathematics.
Badiou pretends to be so scientific and stringent with his set-
theoretic and mathematical ontology, but in the end he is just as
arbitrary and pretentious as Derrida in my view. How do you perceive
Badiou?
He lacks rigor in philosophy, but this is a disease since theology has
been transfered from science to politics, when the Roman closed the
academy of Plato.
I think than in theology, except for the machines, Plotinus is far in
advance to us.
Nevertheless, I could not resist buying Badiou's book on category
theory ("Mathematics of the transcendental"), especially after your
suggestions about category theory.
No problem. If it can open your interest in category theory, that's
all good. Now, I have abandoned using category theory, because it is
leads to difficulties in theoretical computer science. In fact
category is still a solipsist or behaviorist enterprise, somehow, at
least when taken too much seriously in the foundational research.
Another reason is that it is complex, and people have enough
difficulties with elementary logic, computer science, quantum physics,
so no need to make this formally even more difficult.
The best book on Catgeory theory is, imo, the original basic books by
Saunders Mac Lane 'Categories for the Working Mathematicians). The
book "Topoi" by Goldblatt has helped me a lot, as it makes thing
simpler ... for logicians...
But then I read on the inside flap that this book "is essential
reading for his many followers". And the I felt the need to vomit...
Humans, like wolves, needs boss, leader, authorities. It has some role
in our evolution-stories, but it is a big handicap in the spiritual
and theological matter. It makes theology used as per-authority, when
it is really the domain where such use are the most damageable. But I
would not condemn entirely Badiou, as he has a sincere tatste in math,
but he does not address real problem, like the mind-body problem. And,
to be honest, I don't believe in set theory, especially in the
foundations of math. I believe more in category theory, and sets are
useful to build concrete categories, concrete model of lambda algebra
and computer languages, etc.
I explain here that if our body is Turing emulable, then arithmetic
(even without induction) is already enough for the ontology, and that
the ontology is not important, what we call real will be the
persistent illusion from inside.
Machine's theology appears very close to the discourse of mystics,
salvia divinorum (and other psychotropic substance) explorers, the
neoplatonists, the greek-indian mystics ("The question of King
Milinda", for example). It is probably not a coincidence, as the
result is that all machines looking inward will found what I describe.
Maybe read the sane04 paper, and ask question if interested.
Eventually the tools are not that important, compared to the problems.
But if we assume computationalism, at some point, theoretical computer
science is unavoidable. I can explain the details, if/when asked.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
