Le 30-janv.-06, à 22:07, Benjamin Udell wrote, in part, sometimes ago (30 January):

Most people, however, do have some sort of views, which are or have been significant in their lives, about what are traditionally called metaphysical questions -- God, freedom, immortality, psycho-physical relationships, etc. Many have one or another kind of metaphysical faith. It seems increasingly clear to me that Bruno is doing a machine metaphysics, or a computer metaphysics, or a metaphysics of, by, and for computers or machines

Yes. I am interested in what machines (and other entities) can prove about themselves. And also about what is true about themselves, but that those machines/entitities cannot prove, but can deliver as true in a way or another. The propositional parts of those discourse has been captured by the modal logical systems G and G* respectively (Solovay 1976).


(I can't remember why Bruno opts for "machines" instead of "computers.").


I use "computer" for universal machine. "Ordinateur" in french. All loebian machines I talk about are universal machine. All universal machine "believing" in classical tautologies and in the laws of addition and multiplication, and in some induction formulas is lobian.


It's a shame that the word "metaphysics" is ruled out by (if I remember correctly, it was in a post a while back) reaction of intellectuals in Belgium.

In Belgium, in France and in other countries, I'm afraid, among most scientists, I mean. I rule out also "metaphysics" because I don't know what it means. Historically it concerns the books which were on the sides of the books on physics in the texts by Aristotle (but is this a legend?). In "metaphysics", "meta" has not the same sense that "meta" in computer sciences and mathematical logics. Create confusions.

Moreover, "machine metaphysics" is kind of catchy in its alliterative way.

Sure. Look: digital machine metaphysics is a branch of metamathematics!


Metaphysics is not religion but instead a philosophical study of questions which are among the important ones in religion. Philosophy, however, can be applied in living, so the distinction is not a barrier impenetrable in practice (or, therefore, in theory either)

I don't even really believe in any precise frontiers between all those things. It is useful only for the curriculum vitae and for searching job and getting social profile, but any fundamental questioning is up to eventually move frontiers or suppress some.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


Reply via email to