<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear Loet,<div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 22 Feb 2016, at 20:36, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.<o:p></o:p></p><div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><o:p> </o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; ">I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle. <o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="color: rgb(68, 84, 106); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); ">Why would one need a worldview? </span></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We need some theory, and around the mind-body problem or the first person/third person views relation problem (my subject) at some point we must be aware of the difference of conception between Aristotle and Plato. Roughly speaking:</div><div><br></div><div>Aristotle: reality is what we see, observe, measure, etc.</div><div>Plato: what we see might be only a symptom of a simpler reality (like numbers for example).</div><div><br></div><div>The digital mechanist hypothesis in cognitive science seems to favor a lot Plato, if not Pythagorus.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); ">The whole assumption of an order as a Given (in a Revelation) is religious. </span></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What would it mean to do (fundamental) research if we do not postulate some reality?</div><div><br></div><div>The beauty is that once we assume mechanism, we are led to a very minimal ontologic assumption/ precisely the following theory will do: (classical or intuitinist logic +</div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">0 ≠ s(x)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">s(x) = s(y) -> x = y</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x+0 = x</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x+s(y) = s(x+y)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x*0=0</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x*s(y)=(x*y)+x</div></div><div><br></div><div>where s(x) denotes the intended x + 1. I put the induction axioms already in the epistemology.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); ">Order is always constructed (by us) and can/needs to be explained.</span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>OK, but then we need a theory of "us", and many are OK with the mechanist theory, especially since we can use some theorem in logic to show that universal machine defeat all reductionist theory: they already know that they have a soul which is not a machine, with the soul defined by the conjunction of truth and representation. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); ">No “harmonia praestabilita”, but ex post. No endpoint omega. No cosmology, but chaology.</span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To have chaos, you need to assume the axioms given above (or Turing equivalent one).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(68, 84, 106); ">With due respect for those of you who wish to hold on to religion or nature as a given; however, vaguely defined.</span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The religion of the ideally correct machine is platonist: god is a nickname for the ultimate truth that we search, and in that theory, god is not omniscient, not omnipotent, cannot be invoked in reasoning, explanation and any terrestrial affairs, ... </div><div>Machine can have personal revelation, but cannot prove or communicate them rationally. But they can prove that: they can prove that if God exist, then it has no name, is simple, etc.</div><div>In fact the nuances brought by incompleteness make that machine theology quasi identical with the discourse of Moderatus of Gades, (a neopythagorean of the first century), Plotinus (neoplatonist, third century).</div><div><br></div><div>Machines are born "theological": they quickly intuit (produce as true without proving) that truth extends properly reason, when looking inward in the Gödel manner. There is an annulus of "surrationalism" between rationalism and irrationalism. It plays a key role in the explanation of consciousness, qualia, pain, etc, which can also be personally revealed, but not in a provable way. </div><div><br></div><div>Then such theology contains physics, and so can be tested by comparing with nature. Up to now, it fits rather well. If Mechanism is false, this approach gives experimental tools to measure our degree of non-mechanism. </div><div>Note that as a scientist, I don't use or mention any public revelation, which in my opinion, are only pseudo-religious political methods to control people (basically no relation with the antic theology of Plato which was banished by such authorities).</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bruno</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>