On 24 Jan 2015, at 15:54, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true
beliefs about the mathematical nature of the universe.
But Gödel + Church + Kleene + Post + Turing + Matiyazevich...
discovery *is* the discovery that just the arithmetical reality if
full of entities, machines, and non-machines, which struggle to
understand what happens, and develop true and false beliefs around
the subject.
But does "arithmetical reality" exist outside of the human mind? I
would tend to say - no. The human mind entertains concepts. This
is one of them.
The human mind is finite. The arithmetical reality is infinite. Since
Gödel's 1931, we know (assuming computationalism, that is that we are
finite creatures) that we can only scratch the surface.
Gödel's theorem signs the end of the reductionist conception of the
machines and the finite.
This is proved. What is not proved is that they are conscious, but
they need to be if you assume that there is no magic (actual
infinities, non-local 3p influences, 3p indeterminacies) playing in
the brain.
So there is no way that that GR+QFT+IC can (in principle)
mechanistically explain observed human behavior and mathematical
ability?
There is one way: by deriving GR+QFT+IC from 2+2=4 & Co,, or from Kxy
= x & Sxyz = xz(yz).
If you don't do that, you biased the measure by adding magic relation,
non locally Turing emulable. We are confronted to such relations, so
there is no need to add complexities, for preventing a possible
solution to a problem.
I am not referring to the first person subjective experience. Just
the third person observed behavior.
It is not that easy to separate them. The physical third person is in
fact first person plural, if we take mechanism seriously enough.
Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a
random (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and
initial conditions lead to the development of beings who are then
able to correctly (or even approximately) discover those physical
laws and initial conditions.
If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since
evolution seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not
truth. So how do evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory
like that?
But a scientist will never say that <anything> is true. He will just
say what he believes in, knowing he might be wrong.
We can only hope getting close to the truth, but even in arithmetic,
lies can be consistent, and truth can depart from wishes, etc.
However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not
true) - this is more consistent - since it also predicts that
evolved beings will develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling)
theories.
"usefulness" would reduce science to instrumentalism, and then the
question which will be forbid will be "instrument for what"? Torture?
Correct. I like instrumentalism.
Instrument for what? For whatever we want. As a tool for
accomplishing our goals. Whatever they may be.
What is a goal, and is the instrument for, if there is no conception
of some reality.
Anyway, I don't do philosophy, and I don't buy computationalism or
anything. I explain the situation, so to speak.
Don't confuse the theories/instruments, and what is lighted up by
those theories and instrument, partially.
But you are right, truth is not always useful, but lies makes things
harder, and should be avoided in most situations, I think.
I think I understand why you think consciousness "precedes" logic
and arithmetic. I think that this is coherent with the first person
view of the "universal person", as consciousness is atemporal at
that level, and is the origin of all possible consciousness content.
But that is still an inside view. That general consciousness is the
atemporal consciousness of the löbian machine, and perhaps even just
the universal one. It is something approximated by
<>t? & <>t
It is an unconscious "Am I consistent?" in consistent situation. It
is also a semantical fixed point. It provides the meaning of
"meaning" somehow, and let the senses filtered it into consistent
scenarios.
I tend to think that, like information, meaning is a difference that
makes a difference.
Which is to say, meaning is a felt difference that makes a felt
difference.
Which is to say, meaning is a difference in conscious experience
that feels like it makes a difference to conscious experience.
Which is to say, that our consciousness is just a web of felt
differences that feel like they have some significance.
As to what accounts to all of these differences - a "useful" way of
looking at it is is that they are a product of evolution's focus on
survival and reproduction.
I can make sense of what you say, and the difference might be played
by the difference G* \ G, Z* \ Z, Z1* \ Z1.
The universal machine is never completely satisfied, she is always in
need of some difference, at different levels and perspectives.
The Löbian machine (like PA, ZF) is wiser because she gets the roots
of its intrinsic ignorance, even on just the numbers.
The question of the existence of a third person physical reality (not
just a first person plural sharable) is open, in the classical frame
of digital mechanism.
I use computationalism, not because I would believe it to be true, but
because it has the nice feature that with Church Turing thesis
Machines bio, psycho and theo-logies become branches of mathematics.
Bruno
Rex
--
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.
