[Fis] The Limits of Formal Systems: outside of

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Dear Carlos, Pedro and All,
The title of this thread implies an "outside", and what there is is not necessarily outisde logic and science. I suggest that it is important to characterize what the outside contains, in connection with the "inside". The comments made in several postings may usefully, I think, be looked at together:
1. Carlos, Feb. 8: "...we won't find predictability, consistence, completeness, etc. as we would like. ... What we need is a synthesis that will bring them (the suggested new tools) together.
2. Joseph, Feb.9: "This is what I have been trying to capture with my (transconsistent) logic of processes." way
3. Gordana, Feb. 8: Several paradigm shifts at the same time, but away from human intelligence only.
4. Pedro, Feb. 7: A logic is needed beyond computation and formal systems.
5. Karl, Feb. 9: The basic differences between symbols are immanent to them. Information and the construct of imformation.
6. Eric, Feb. 12: This does not mean we should enter the world where all is accepted no matter how contradictory. Reasoning goes beyond axiomatic logic, but there are still laws or guides to clear reasoning.
7. Carlos,Feb. 12: No formal systems without limits. ((But) we must change our world view to go beyond those limits. "...we can explore "laws of information" that apply to everything we can express (because if you can express it, by definition it is information.)
8. Stuart, Feb. 12: Descartes asked the wrong question "There is no 'doing in the world' in this question"
Lupasco: "I doubt therefore I am."
9. Alex, Feb. 13: Life and consciousness can never be expressed 'in terms of information. At their heart lie the phenomena of critical instabilities, the physics of which make their digitization impossible.
10. Lou, Feb. 13: " ... diagrammatic formal systems allow a very wide interaction among these different modes of wprking" (and their expansion) "in their prolixity escape some of the problems of incompleteness, (But not all. See my previous email).  
11. Pedro, Feb. 13: "Therefore, the initial question (expressing cheese in terms of information) literally becomes rather absurd, fundamentalist.
12. Plamen, Feb. 14: (There is a) core of imcompleteness in algorithms.
13. Mariusz, Feb. 14: "... while other physical objects/processes are not collections but complex structures and systems."
As I look over this list I just made, and with the complete postings at least partly in mind, I can distinguish
attitudes that are generally defensive toward radical, non-computable change and those that are more accepting of it. But many of the notes could be "un-blocked" simply by thinking of any real process as constituted by dynamic as well as static parts - that is, "lke" a living being. What may be static can be only temporarily so, the resultant of a process that may have taken or will take place.
Another brief point: I have learned that algorithms can be incomplete, but this incompleteness is not the same is that in thought. Algorithms cannot change "by themselves".
Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240214/0dde15f8/attachment.html>