In the present Interlude after the session chaired by Lou on Symmetry and
before the coming one, allow me to enlarge on something Bruno raised.
Bruno wrote:
*Then this confirms the "computationalist theory of everything", which is
given by any formalism, like Robinson Arithmetic (the rest is given by the
internal machine's phenomenology, like the one deducible from
incompleteness). Indeed, in that theory, the stable (predictible)
observable have to be given by a statistics on all computation going
through our actual state. This (retro-)predicts that the physical obeys to
some quantum logic, and it can be derived from some intensional nuance on
the Gödel self-referential provability predicate (like beweisbar('p') &
consistent('t')).*
*In quantum mechanics without collapse of the wave during observation, the
axiom 3 is phenomenological, and with computationalism in the cognitive
science (the assumption that there is a level of description of the brain
such that my consciousness would proceed through any such emulation of my
brain or body at that level or below) the whole "physical" is
phenomenological. *
*Physics becomes a statistics on our consistent sharable first person
(plural) experiences. With "our" referring to us = the universal numbers
knowing that they are universal (Peano Arithmetic, Zermelo Fraenkel Set
Theory, viewed as machine, are such numbers).*
*An actuality is a possibility seen from inside, somehow, in this context
or theory (QM without collapse, or Computationalism). *
*Personally, it seems that quantum mechanics, when we agree on the internal
phenomenological of actuality in the possibilities, confirms the most
startling, perhaps shocking, consequence of computationalism (digital
mechanism). Note that it does not make the physical itself computable a
priori.*
Of these thoughts, let us focus on the following:
“…. when we agree on the internal phenomenological of actuality in the
possibilities, confirms the *most startling, perhaps shocking*, consequence
of computationalism (digital mechanism). …”
Now how does “shocking” enter a discourse on quantum concepts and the idea
that there is knowledge and wisdom in them there natural numbers?
Obviously, and let us thank Bruno for having pointed it out, there is an
element of reticence, unwillingness, resistance and protracted, unpleasant
surprise in the thought that Life, and the world in general may be much
more mechanistic and trivial than thought before.
The person pre-shock believes in something, the person post-shock knows
that he has been robbed a dream. It is like a child has to realise that
Santa Claus is not a real person, and that little babies do come about the
way they come about.
Many ideas have to be laid to rest during the process of familiarising
oneself to the idea that the glue that holds the world together – and
within it, our ideas about the world – is best described by the well-known
form of *a+b=c* as known from good old elementary school.
Discussing what forms and appearances the order can produce which rules
Nature, and within Nature, us and our thoughts, is unfortunately equivalent
to discussing, what kinds of order we can look into and discover within
*a+b=c*, as this old, well-chewed bone is the backbone of rational
concepts.
The disillusionment will be individually instrumented for each of us, as
Tolstoy had said about the unhappiness of families, each in their own way.
The resulting – remaining – denotation, after having lost its connotations,
will be made up of the simple grey, standard, industrial units of
abstraction, order as a running fight among, and a compromise between *b-a,
a-2b, a+b, 2b-3a, *and the like.
Please accept my apologies for the shock the insight may cause that we are
indeed just an experiment in combinatorics, and probably the elves,
fairies, trolls and unicorns do not exist neither.
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
