[Fis] Anticipatory Systems (and theology)

Bruno Marchal marchal at ulb.ac.be
Tue Nov 6 09:49:22 CET 2018


Dear Loet,

I reply online.



> On 5 Nov 2018, at 09:36, Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net> wrote:
> 
> From my perspective, "theology" is not the right reference. The issue is to dare to articulate intuitions even if speculative. "Theology" is easily associated with normative premises. 
> 
> Do you agree?

Yes and no. I use the term “theology” in the original sense of theology brought by Plato. Theology is the study of the ultimate fundamental truth, with the insight that it is beyond us, and can hardly claim to have found it. 

In 529, the radical christians took power, and decide to separate theology from science, just to make it into a normative means to control and steal people. The christian non radical have continued to do theology, but in a way similar to how the Soviet dissidents have continue to do science.

To accept that theology is only that “stolen science made normative” makes me feel accomplice of the radicals, and to the obscurantism in the spiritual domain. 

The Renaissance is not yet transformed. We will leave the Middle-Age when all science, including theology is back at the academy or the faculty of science. 

Serious (and thus non normative, and modest) believer understand this well.

I have been asked to use other term, and I have indeed use “biology” for a long time, and this made sense for a precise part of my work, but can be very confusing for another part, and I have used “psychology” for that, but this led to different sort of confusion. Then, in France, I have been also asked to not use theology, but I got the usual critics: that is theology. To avoid this, I have decided to come back to the term “theology”, especially that it happens that, by using the greek definition of all theological term, the discourse of the machine introspecting itself converge toward a precise neopythagorean version of Plotinus and Proclus theologian. 

This is useful, as it makes the non agnostic atheism (belief in the second god of Aristotle, the primitive matter)directly into a theology, which is shown wrong with the mechanist hypothesis. This explains also some difficulties in Descartes’ life and work.

Only bad faith fear reason, and I think that 99,9% of the human suffering comes from our acceptance of irrationality in the most fundamental science: theology. Only by bringing theology back in science will humans be able to come back to doubt, modesty, critical mind, and progress in the domain.

Today “theology” is associated with normative premises, and indeed, the neoplatonist theologian scientists have been persecuted since. 

Another problem is that this separation of theology from science has lead to the metaphysical choice between “matter with god” and “matter without god”, which is a terrible impoverishment of the field. The constant God/Non-God debate is a bit like an Aristotelian trick to make us forget that the initial doubt was not about God (the fundamental truth that we search) but about the Matter (the naturalistic/materialist conception  of reality). Using theology helps people to understand that my work contradict the “atheist theology” (the belief in a primary physical universe, or the belief that consciousness arise from the physical reality, which is inconsistent with the mechanist hypothesis).

I discovered later, in a book by Daniel Cohen(*), that mathematical logic (the main tool in the study of the theology of machine) is born from a theological dispute between anglican unioniste (open to Plato) and anglican trinitarian (in power and thus close to Aristotle). I already knew that both mathematics and physics were born from neoplatonist theology (it is really the fundamental science: it postulates God, but in the explicit modest way of science).

Not using the term “theology” will let the science in the hand of the normative charlatan, which use fairy tales to make people sleepy. I think that if the ABC of theology was taught in high school, we wold be much less prone to irrationalism in the whole of the human science, like we are today in the politics of health, capable of lying systematically on medication, but also less prone to the exploitation of fear in general, like in “politics”.

So, I have decided to stick on the term “theology”. I just remind in all paper its original, pre-christian, meaning. In that case the machine science of the “little self” is axiomatized by the modal logic G, and the non-machine truth on the “little self” is axiomatised by G*, and the intensional variant imposed by incompleteness explains the relation between the little self and the higher self, and we are lead to the discourse of the mystics and the platonician, and with some luck will help them to not be burned alive too much quickly.

So, yes, today “theology” is normative, like “genetics” has been normative in the USSR, but we must fight to get the (whole) science back into the secular thinking. If not, we are accomplice with the charlatan, and we are not letting the science to improve itself in that important domain. It helps also to understand that the belief in primitive matter is a religious belief, based on an extrapolation that we do instinctively, but it is a theory, not a fact (a point which makes nervous the materialist).

Note that the theology of machine is not speculative at all. It is a precise branch of mathematical logic, with a physical component which is testable. And well tested since (I predicted both the interpretation and the formalism of quantum mechanics from it 40 years ago, before discovering that the physicists already got it, except the physicists added the quite speculative and nonsensical reduction of the wave packet). It helps also to see that Plotinus and the greek were already close to the “correct” (in the mechanist frame) theory of matter (seen as the place where God lose control somehow, matter is indeterminacy before all things).

Then, it is also theology, because mechanism is a form of hope/belief in a form of survival after death, through a digital brain transplant, and it leads to the understanding that the idea that death is an end of the first person consciousness is a form of unfounded wishful thinking. It is a bit frightening for some people, but that is exactly what science is: the attempt to not use our personal wishes to address the nature of reality.
Today's machine already know that they have a soul which is not a machine. Such machine might be deemed “intelligent” when they will forget this, alas.

To conclude, yes, I agree the whole field, not just the word, of theology has become normative in Occident after 529. But there is no reason to prolongate this, as it prolongate the irrationality and the norm in the field. We see everyday in the Newspaper all the bad that this separation can do. It is about time to come back to reason. Then, the theology of machine explains why and how there is a theological trap, and helps to prevent us to fall in it. The muslims made the same error than the christian in 1248, when Al Ghazali win the debate against Averroes. Averroes defended the idea that the religious text must be submitted to reason, and Al Ghazali defended the idea that reason must be submitted to text, which in part led to the muslim obscurantism and todays wars in between muslims. Recently I have discovered that there remains 60.000 muslims bektashi in the Balkan, which defends science and reason.  Like all neoplatonist they were, and still are, persecuted by those invoking the norm in the field. We have to stop this. I think. We cannot afford for one millenium more of obscurantism. The fact that the machines have a clearcut precise and testable theology can only help for this coming back to reason and modesty.

Thank you for this very important question. 

Best,

Bruno


(*) Cohen J. Daniel, 2007. Equations from God, Pure Mathematics and Victorian Faith, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.


> 
> Best,
> Loet
> 
> Loet Leydesdorff 
> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
> loet en leydesdorff.net  <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> 
> Associate Faculty, SPRU,  <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex; 
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,  <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; 
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal en ulb.ac.be <mailto:marchal en ulb.ac.be>>
> To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>>
> Sent: 11/3/2018 10:15:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Anticipatory Systems
> 
>> 
>>> On 31 Oct 2018, at 11:11, Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Bruno. I look forward to the references. 
>>> We come from different research traditions, don't we?
>> 
>> Thanks Loet. I am not sure if we come really from different tradition, but then my way to proceed has been abandoned 1500 years ago, when Plato academy has been closed. It is simply the idea that theology cannot be separated from (the fundamental) science. Than with Turing mathematical discovery of the universal machine (the mathematical computer, even arithmetical) many points in Plato becomes “scientifically testable” in the frame of the mechanist hypothesis.
>> I do have problem with some dogmatic materialist, though, but they do not argue. In fact I never meet them, and just mock vague ideas that they attribute to me. My technical problem is that mathematical logic plays a crucial role, and is not well taught.
>> From your post, I think you are not a long way from a similar open minded approach,
>> 
>> Here are some references(*), but I will send them also to FIS at some occasion.
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> (*)
>> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
>> 
>> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
>> 
>> 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 <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> (sane04)
>> 
>> Plotinus PDF paper link:
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf <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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Loet
>>> 
>>> Loet Leydesdorff 
>>> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
>>> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>>> loet en leydesdorff.net  <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> 
>>> Associate Faculty, SPRU,  <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex; 
>>> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,  <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>>> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; 
>>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal en ulb.ac.be <mailto:marchal en ulb.ac.be>>
>>> To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>>; "FIS" <fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>>
>>> Sent: 10/31/2018 10:39:14 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Anticipatory Systems
>>> 
>>>> Hi Loet, Hi colleagues,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 29 Oct 2018, at 19:49, Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems to me that the strongest tool that we have for making predictions is a model. Let's take a simple one: f = m * a. It enables us to predict the path of a mass with a certain velocity, etc. It is not a narrative, but we can narrate it. The narrative is in natural language; that is, the not-yet codified communication. The model takes it one step up. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Following Damasio and others, Pedro gave a very rich account of the anti-dualist program in biology and ai. In my opinion, the error is not Descartes', but in the narrative about Descartes. One cannot reduce mind to body and make the body understand symbolic expressions such f = m * a. One may be able to anticipate intuitively, but the model is far superior because it is a means of communication among us. One can solve problems with it at the supra-individual level. In other words, my position is thoroughly dualistic and anti-reductionist. (Of course, one should not return to Descartes; but let's say Husserl's intersubjective intentionality which transcends the individual noesis.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interestingly, the forward arrow follows the entropy law; the backward arrow in the case of anticipation does not generate entropy, but redundancy. It can be backward because we can entertain the model which gives us access to the state at t+1. The specification of this state can then operate as an independent variable (cause) upon our current state (at t= t). For example, we can construct technologies such as vaccines. The prediction of a risk makes it possible to anticipate. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Prediction, extrapolation, and anticipation is of course the core of artificial intelligence, if not just intelligence, and this has been studied throughly in theoretical computer science, notably by Case and Smith, staring from the work of Blum.
>>>> I might provide more explanations on this, including some references, later, because I am a bit overwhelmed by the professional duties for now. Some approaches using notion close to entropies, but the general theory does not (and it is the one I know the most), to be sure.
>>>> 
>>>> Bruno
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Loet
>>>>> 
>>>>> Loet Leydesdorff 
>>>>> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
>>>>> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>>>>> loet en leydesdorff.net  <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> 
>>>>> Associate Faculty, SPRU,  <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex; 
>>>>> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,  <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>>>>> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; 
>>>>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>>>> From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com <mailto:johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com>>
>>>>> To: "Karl Javorszky" <karl.javorszky en gmail.com <mailto:karl.javorszky en gmail.com>>
>>>>> Cc: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>>
>>>>> Sent: 10/29/2018 4:48:28 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Anticipatory Systems
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wonderful, Karl - thank you!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think one of the most important stories that we have to look at is the story about how we have come to think about science. More pertinently, there is a question about whether we need a new story – and whether a story with “information” (or perhaps "redundancy") at its heart is that new story.  From digital ontology, quantum mechanics, biosemiotics, cybernetics, black hole cosmology and the theology of people like Arthur Peacock and John Haught, it seems that this indeed is the beginning of a new story for the world. We  need it, don’t we?!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’m reading David Wootton’s “The Invention of Science” at the moment. It’s a wonderful scholarly account of the construction of scientific narrative in the 17th century. Highlighting the invention of concepts like “discovery”, “fact”, “evidence”, “laws” and “experiment”, Wootton points out that poets knew what was happening decades before the likes of Bacon put it in more prosaic terms. This is John Donne, who Wotton quotes in the first chapter:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A new philosophy cals all in doubt,
>>>>>> The element of fire is quite put out;
>>>>>> The sunne is lost, and th’earth, and no mans wit
>>>>>> Can well direct him, where to looke for it.
>>>>>> And freely men confesse, that this world’s spent,
>>>>>> When in the Planets, and the firmament
>>>>>> They seeke so many new; they see that this
>>>>>> Is crumbled out againe to his Atomis. 
>>>>>> ‘Tis all in pieces, all cohaerence gone; 
>>>>>> All just supply, and all Relation;
>>>>>> Prince, Subject, Father, Sonne are things forgot,
>>>>>> And every man alone thinks he hath got
>>>>>> To be a phoenix, and that then can bee
>>>>>> None of that kind, of which he is, but hee.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Extraordinary, isn’t it? We have everything from atoms to the individualism of capitalism. But Donne gets what was missing: it was coherence. We’ve tried to put the pieces back together again. But it doesn’t work. We need something else.  To emphasise my earlier point, there is a choice as to how we look at narrative: if we look through the lens of the scientific revolution, we see the world broken down into constructions and stories where “every man thinks he hath got to be a phoenix” (or indeed, has no choice but to be one). I’d prefer to look through Donne’s lens, and see the coherence we have lost. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 15:33, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky en gmail.com <mailto:karl.javorszky en gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Anticipation
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Learned Friends,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> We deal with the observation, that biologic organisms anticipate what will happen next. Some concentrate on the narrative of the anticipation, some on the phenomena that are anticipated. As a human faculty, anticipation can range from intuition, guess, instinct, to prediction and certitude. Science has more or less dealt with certitude (b follows from a) and has understood prediction (if a then p(b) ~ x). Now we work our way towards understanding instinctive prediction.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The utility and efficacy of the narrative version of anticipation varies also greatly: we have the wish formulae, where faith and belief causes anticipating an effect (if I say “please” they will give that to me), magical incantations with powerful words, inputting arguments of an algorithm in the hope of receiving a result, and the classical case of the words of the narrative being one and inseparable from the facts that are the case (the DNA is a narrative of what will happen, and its predictions are in the closest possible way related to the facts of the matter the narrative talks about). (Interactive online reporting, where the narration is a part of the process.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We do have some difficulties with a running narration, because such a thing as telling the future has no place in classical, Wittgenstein logic and the corresponding narrative about the proceedings. That, what will come into existence is presently not the case. Whichever way we turn it, we are not supposed to talk about things that are not the case. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Foretelling the future (anticipating correctly) is a task that humans can despair of. This problem being with us since the beginning of time, it has been addressed by many generations using diverse lexica. Bruno’s suggestion that we have no shy using words and concepts of theology is a wise one: Our forefathers expressed themselves in allegories involving divine figures. This has given me courage to present to you an Allegory on the Seduction of Arithmetica by Amor, with a bow to Martianus Capella. May your serene judgement of this non-polished draft be softened by magnanimous mercy extended against a beginner.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Seduction of Arithmetica by Amor (20181028)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Amor: (enters scene of idyllic Elysian character) Oh All you Gods! Your help is needed now that I have lost my way in my quest for my beloved second-sister Arithmetica, and now I am in unknown terrain, where no human intelligence had shed any light so far. Where are you, oh Arithmetica?!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: (enters from behind a tree) Here I am my Amor, never far from you. You have a desire to talk to me
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: Please help. I have a problem I cannot solve on my own. You know, Zeus has gone more mercantilist, in the wealth-generating mood, and he tasks each of us to prepare reports the end of every quarter. How many arrows fired, how many hits, and among these how many with operational achievement. Now what is a success I know: if I hit with my arrow the heart of one individual. What they want to know is, however, how many couples I generate and how fruitful the resulting fornications will turn out to become. They are in population management up there and are obviously scheming to make me less industrious or less precise, but first they want the numbers. How can you tell me, my dear second-sister, how many healthy offspring are generated per arrow shot of mine?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: You, my dear second-brother, like so many others, want to know whether we can foretell the future by our dexterous fingers, using distinguishable objects which we count. The answer is: theoretically no, practically yes. You may at first not understand this reply. To help to open up your mind, let me tell you in all confidence a sordid part of my life.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: Ah, my dearest Arithmetica? How come you have suffered indignities? Surely by the acts of the mortals?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: Yes, the bipeds have kidnapped me from the Gardens of Olymp and pressed me into their service. This would have not been necessary, first of all, but for the cruel circumstances of that rendition into the realm of the humans, the shame of it has kept my forced adoption for a long time in the dark. Everybody knows that my 6 sisters and I are of a cooperative, willing, pleasing character, because we find pleasure in what we do. No one needs to force Music to be the essence of Music, there is no need to coerce Geometry into doing geometry! We are the far relatives of the Muses, in the technical, applicational fields. We like what we do, otherwise we could not embody the spirit of that what we are. But what happened to me was of an otherworldly brutality. All the bipeds agree in praising our diligence and competence, in my case my speciality, exactitude. There is no need to subject a person of our divine breed to such indignities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: What, oh Arithmetica, what did they did to you?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: That subgroup of the bipeds which calls itself the Quadrivials have captured me and keep me locked up in a place with rectangular axes on which identically spaced units are measuring distances. You cannot imagine a less creative surroundings for a young girl. It is pure sensory deprivation, the intellectual equivalent of a solitary confinement. I have no permission to have anything in hand that is not of a uniform make, as such indistinguishable from any other unit element. They just eliminated all diversity from their castle. These are very strict people.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: what a sad story! You with all your talents and you love of glitzy things to be left on your own among grey uniform units that have no relations among each other! You always loved arranging and re-arranging your manifold glitzy things according to their inner connections among each other. You always knew that there is a system of a-priori relations among the things: this is what their differing ways of being glitzy expresses.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: You, my beloved, understand my pain. It is all right if those of strong faith require that one serves them according to their beliefs and rituals, but it is not right, if these well-educated rulers discourage any parallel way of looking at things, which in my case means counting them. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: As far as I know you, my dear Arithmetica, you will never give up. Every day, the efforts of deciphering the original creativity of Zeus and his ancestors will bring up new details about the world, where your unerring faculties are needed. The bipeds rejoice in thy works and bring you many spectacles and offerings, I understand?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: Indeed, I am not without resources. Evading the intrusive surveillance of my quadrivial masters, this maiden has imagined up her beloved glitzy things, which she so much enjoyed arranging about during chaste childhood, playing with the frolicking centaurs, naiads and nymphs. To evade any malign attention, I have replaced the actual form of the glitziness with a number, and only worked on the first few natural numbers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: Indeed, I have been hearing you muttering to yourself: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Position ( (a,b), d, (b,a) ) = b * (b+1)/2 + a,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Position ( (a,b), d, (a,b) ) = d * (d+1)/2 – (d-a+1) * (d-a+2)/2 + (b-a+1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the other day.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: That was the x,y coordinates on a plane of pairs (a,b) which can have any of d degrees of glitziness. These coordinates can be grouped into what is called cycles by lines that connect elements that change places with each other in a sequence of push-aways. The concurrent running of several cycles creates rhythms. This is pure arithmetic, no one can deny that. Still, the Lords distrust the idea of order, as long as it comes from ordering by one’s own free will. They learned well, how Poseidon orders water, how Helios throws his bolts, but they would never think of sequencing just for the sake of it, to see how far they get until they overdo it. They do not believe that if you generate all of the possible alternatives, the reasonable ones will turn up among these and will be recognised. The a-priori relations that exist in the world, do have something to do with order, or am I mistaken on this point? What mortal people don’t notice is that you can stick axes into each other in a rectangular fashion and completely valid Descartes spaces emerge, just on the glitzy properties of the first 16 numbers. They haver a deep revulsion against considering objects that are different to each other.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: So, you can build rectangular spaces just from natural numbers? Just by re-ordering them? You can demonstrate what is called gravitation by the bipeds to be an implication of linear order (of the Peano axioms)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: Now we come to the answer to the question you have started out with. Can we foretell Future? Only the Gods can do that in a full sense, but we are catching up. The problem is that my overlords, the Quadrivials, do not like conflicts and unpredictable outcomes. As if an unpredictable outcome would be on average any better or worse than a predictable one. It is the subjective tension they do not like, and this is why they discourage a relaxed, rational view of predictability.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: Well, I was always an admirer of your countless fingers, tentacles and other appendices that you can bend to a high number of distinct degrees each, but do your arithmetic calculations allow me to foretell the number of living births per woman between 15 and 45 years of age?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: That detail can be solved, once the Lords of Quadriviality encourage the industrious bipeds to base their calculations on recurrences and their predictability. The problem is, they officially have no concept for a future: everything in classical logic happens in the moment; classical logic is as such: timeless. They have to laboriously calculate around the concept of cycles, because to use cycles as the basis of all calculations would admit to the existence of alternatives. If alternatives a priori exist, the whole edifice of classical logic turns out to be a special case, riding the wave, surfing along a moment of truth, being in the air while running in jumps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: This might be the curse by the descendants of Cheiron the wise centaur. Being as well a horse and as well a man teaches one some insight into biology and its relation to rational thinking. The Quadrivials have decided that theirs is the rational way to determine the greenness of grass and could not suffer Cheiron’s frequent intermissions: is maybe the grass indeed greener the other side of the road? Before getting too much disturbed in their picture of the world, they have eliminated Cheiron and all of his folk. They could not stomach the common-sense approach a half-horse brings to counting. He could argue his case as eloquently as he wanted. He was all for predictability and a natural web of relationships among the parts of the world. He could have argued to electrically powered Wittgenstein machines for all the understanding and sympathy he got. They do not wish to be engaged in ambiguities. That, what can be resolved by finding the one, correct solution, that is quadrivial. That, what can be discussed, put in different lights, can have several solutions, none of which is completely right: this delineates a subject the quadrivials make a wide berth around. Conflicts are trivial. Centaurs are creating conflicts, they are as such, in themselves a conflict, so they get radically removed from the quadrivial world. How will they now try to understand what makes centaurs function, let alone reason? They were not able to understand that axiomatics begins with axiom 1: there must be recurrent feeding. Till today, they burn holy weeds in their offices if the word “recurrent” is uttered. These people are beyond the point of no return. The divine retribution for the extermination of the centaurs is presently taking place. Our ruling elite is unable to think it terms of recurrent states of a set, because they have deep feelings of guilt and emptiness for having expelled the animal spirits from their reasoning-thinking part of the brain.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: Is it so, that fertility rates are sinking in those parts of the world, where you induce pairing, depressive as you sound, Amor? Do not paint my overlords in such a harsh light, my friend. Rigid they may appear, but some of them are flexible and clever. Let me continue whispering in as many ears as stand open, in the low voice of reason, that working on uniform things during the day does not prohibit one from working with glitzy things, in off time. Perhaps, some of the quadrivials do like engineering, puzzles and the building of kaleidoscopes.  Do not give up hope yet, my beloved Amor. So, we shall part for a time now, but we shall meet again. Your arrow has touched me in my inner being, and our chaste meeting of minds has resulted in the creation of a new baby girl, of which you are the father, my beloved Amor.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Enter young child, growing on stage into young woman)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Amor: Sacre bleu! A nice conversation about predictions turns out to be a love affair, with consequences, and here she is, the consequence: one maiden, quite becoming, who seems to be fully enjoying all feelings of vibes. She is the fruit of our love? What a divine end to this story!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Arithmetica: Yes, your longings have awakened in my heart the desire to be a well behaving daughter of Philosophia and, like my respected Mother, from time to time to give birth to a baby Science. Please meet your sweet daughter Rhythmonomia, who will help you and all bipeds to give different names to different rhythms and make a great work of it, deriving much pleasure from finding the correct answers to some of their questions. My Quadrivial Lords will surely forgive me for getting impregnated by an idea, once they see how pleasingly helpful Rhythmonomia will be in their everyday household tasks or in their great campaigns to achieve intellectual brilliancy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Exeunt)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>> Fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dr. Mark William Johnson
>>>>>> Institute of Learning and Teaching
>>>>>> Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
>>>>>> University of Liverpool
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Phone: 07786 064505
>>>>>> Email: johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com <mailto:johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com>
>>>>>> Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com <http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181106/4230a102/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list