[Fis] Math, math, math!
Bruno Marchal
marchal at ulb.ac.be
Tue Nov 21 19:01:58 CET 2017
Dear Koichiro,
> On 19 Nov 2017 at 10:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Time might be an indexical, like with Mechanism in cognitive
> science, or
> like in General Relativity.
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
> It would be nice to share with you some agreement, no matter how
> minute
> it may be. That said, with regard to the issue of time, I could
> follow your
> point of the indexical nature of time so long as the standard
> tradition of
> doing sciences is respected.
Of course. I think that in science there is simply no room for
disagreeing. The worst conflict is only a discovery that we work in
different theory. We can always agree on our disagreement, and they
should only be assessing different theories.
My assumption is (very) elementary arithmetic and "Mechanism" in its
digital/computationalist form, i.e. the belief that we can survive
with an artificial digital body/brain. (In some precise sense, I want
to be short here). My goal was only to show that some of its
consequences are testable.
I am not entirely sure why you raise that issue, and please, ask if
you need any precision on my contribution.
My main point is a constructive (testable) proof that mechanism and
materialism are incompatible, and that this can be tested. In a sense,
contemporary physics confirms mechanism over materialism/physicalism,
up to now at least.
I am not sure it can help in the context of an applicable theory of
information, except by making clear the reason why, for any universal
machine looking inward (in the Gödelian sense) information must have
justifiable third person aspect, *and* non justifiable or even non
expressible first person aspect. It is an "easy" consequences of
Gödel's theorem, and Tarski-like theorems, for those who are familiar
with them.
> At the same time, one can also raise the
> question of "What time is it or what time do you have?" quite easily
> in
> everyday life. This everyday-life time (that is common time,
> demeaned by
> Isaac Newton) is more than simply being indexical. It could also be
> retro-causative in that if the reading of your wrist watch happens
> to differ
> from mine, I may ask myself to correct the preceding setting of
> timekeeping
> of mine or decide to negotiate with you what to do so as to remove the
> discrepancy. That is a new action towards modifying and updating the
> causes
> to the clock movements set previously. Its empirical demonstration
> is seen
> in various biological clocks. GPS time, that is vital to us these
> days, has
> nothing to do with biology. Of course, unless the retrocausal
> adjustments
> fail, time to be read out of the finished record by us could safely be
> indexical. In this case, indexical time is an abstraction from
> retro-causative time rather than the other way around.
>
> Once the retro-causative aspect of time receives due attention, the
> implication of what is called communication in time may
> significantly be
> differentiated depending upon the extent to which time would differ
> from
> being merely indexical.
Absolutely.
This is even close to why a theory can evolve, and get different
roles. For example, if the "machine theology" is refuted (which is
quite plausible, as the physics is constructively determined with
mechanism), the "machine theology" will still give a tool to measure
our degrees of non-mechanism, and to compare different theologies, as
well. Today the degree of non mechanism is zero, but this is only
because we have been to compare only tiny fragment of the "machine's
quantum logics" and nature's one. That is close of measuring a degree
of "non-indexicalness" of time and space.
All the best,
Bruno
PS this is my second (last) post of the week.
>
>
> Koichiro Matsuno
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bruno
> Marchal
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 10:50 PM
> To: Foundation of Information Science <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Math, math, math!
>
> Dear Koichiro,
>
>
> On 15 Nov 2017, at 01:02, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
>
>> On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziarturo at libero.it wrote:
>>
>> I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e.,
>> testable mathematical predictions.
>>
>> [KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone.
>> There is
>> no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present accessible
>> in the present tense.
>
> I am glad to hear that. Not all mathematicians would agree, but all
> would
> agree that this statement is true for what Brouwer called once "the
> separable part of mathematics", which is very first order elementary
> arithmetic without induction.
>
> With induction, we have problem with the "ultra-intuitionist", who
> tend to
> disbelieve in the everywhere definiteness of the exponential
> function. Those
> are very rare, but some are very good mathematiciian and are
> followed rather
> closely (like when Nelson claimed to have a proof of the
> inconsistency of
> Peano Arithmetic, this has been thoroughly investigated until an
> error was
> shown, as Nelson admitted:
> but he seems to still believe that PA is inconsistent).
>
>
>
>> Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including biology
>> and communication at large often refer to something not in the
>> present
>> via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings.
>
> I am not sure of this. "we" the humans are certainly "historical
> beings",
> but as de Chardin put it, we might be spiritual being living the human
> experiences, among others. Time might be an indexical, like with
> Mechanism
> in cognitive science, or like in General Relativity.
>
>
>
>> That
>> must look quite uneasy to mathematicians.
>
> Most mathematicians just don't do neither physics, nor psychology,
> still
> less theology or metaphysics. They hide their motivation, and they
> often
> forget the motivations of those who brought the tools and results
> they like
> to develop. Very few logicians seem to be aware that the rise of
> mathematical logic started from a dispute between unitarian and
> trinitarian,
> and the will to make (non-confessional) theology more rigorously
> (Benjamin
> Peirce (the father of Charles.S.
> Peirce), de Morgan, Boole, even Lewis Carroll ...).
>
>
>
>> One loophole for making it
>> tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the
>> mathematical notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does
>> survive in the finished record but the future trajectories may remain
>> unfathomable at the present.
>> Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what
>> could
>> be persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present
>> tense,
>> though somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of
>> concrete particulars.
>
> Some people argue that a truth like 2+2=4 is eternal, and true
> everywhere.
> But this does not make sense, as the temporal and locality attribute
> pertain
> on physical object. At best we might say that 2+2=4 is out of time and
> place. Such truth is out of the category of things to which time and
> place/position does not applied. It makes no sense to ask "since
> when 2 is
> even?", except poetically or in some colloquial manner.
>
> Now, this does not mean that in the context of *some* metaphysical
> theory/assumption, some possible links between the physical reality
> and the
> mathematical (or arithmetical) reality cannot be derived. I have
> shown, in
> particular, that if a brain is Turing emulable, then we have to
> explain the
> physical appearances, including time and space, as emerging in the
> form of
> stable first person plural discourse from a statistic on all
> computations
> (which are realized in all interpretations of tiny fragment of
> Arithmetic,
> when we assume/accept the Church-Turing thesis). That is testable,
> and it
> works up to now, as we recover an intuitionist subject for the
> "soul/knower", and a quantum logic for the "observable/predictable".
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Koichiro Matsuno
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of
>> tozziarturo at libero.it
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM
>> To: fis at listas.unizar.es
>> Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math!
>>
>> Dear FISers,
>>
>> My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable
>> journals, for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly
>> scientific reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions.
>>
>>
>> Sent from Libero Mobile
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20171121/d0381ac7/attachment.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list