Le 06-févr.-06, à 22:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

So Bruno says that:
a) "I am a machine."
b) "...no man can grasp all aspect of man"

To be sure, and clear, note that I have never said "I am a machine", nor "man is a machine". All what I say is that: "IF I am a machine THEN physics emerges from machine's psychology or theology". Both ontologically and epistemologically.

Now, I have made some progress, and strictly speaking, I can replace the comp hyp by the much more general "lobian" hyp. This entails that machines and a very large class of non-machine shares the same physical laws.

Of course my argument remains simpler to present with the comp hyp, and I still can refer to it for that reason.

b) become no machine, no angels, nor Gods can grasp all aspect of itself. Even the Plato's and Plotin's big ONE can't, but it is not because it lacks something, in that case, it is more because it does not lack anything so that somehow it is far above the very idea of grasping.

See Boolos 1993 (precise ref in my Lille thesis) for an explicit description of an "angel" (by which I mean any loebian entity which is not turing emulable, but still follows the G/G* logic).

Tom says that to philosophize is one aspect of humanness that is more than a machine (i.e. simply following a set of instructions).

The idea of following a set of instructions is level dependent. I agree it is basically inhuman. Now machine can observe themselves (in more than one sense) and this in general leads to unpredictable behavior. With or without the quantum hyp. it can be said that man or nature follows simple set of instruction like following the (linear and computable) solutions of the Schroedinger Eq.

Jef and Brent say that we are machines who (that?) philosophize.

Well, if we are machines, we must admit we are philosophizing a liitle bit :)

Brent says that realizing we are machines is the beginning of (or another step in) the death of human hubris (arrogance).

I agree, but loebianity is almost the most general characterization of humilty and modesty. For the modalist: humility = Dt -> DBf, Modesty = B(Bp->p)->Bp". I will come back on this, when I will come back on the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus' hypostases.

I thought that Bruno maintains that humility is on the side of realizing that we cannot totally understand ourselves.

No loebian entity can fully understand it-selves, and that gives to them many (really many) alternative exploration paths, which can recombine or not.

Pascal, "Reason can begin again when we recognize what we cannot know."

Yes and no. Some have used that formula with the meaning that you can reason, but only starting from such or such "sacred book on revelations". In particular I am not sure in which sense pascal did use it.

Could we try to make sense of this, given that we believe in sense?

I hope this help a little bit. I hope I can make it clearer, perhaps by finding a way to explain Godel's theorem and incompleteness phenomena, and how they are related to G and G*, and the discoveries of "mystical machines" (which are just machines which look deep inside themselves, in the Godel-Lob sense of self-reference).



Reply via email to