On 05 Jan 2011, at 21:45, Brian Tenneson wrote:
"The Tao that can be described is not the ultimate Tao"
I <3 Lao tseu, and all the taoists. There is a full chapter on Lao-
tseu in the long version of my PhD(*). They were aware of the dream
argument. In fact, I call the modal formula:
x -> ~B x (or its contrapositive Bx -> ~x) with B intended for the
scientific communication or proof: the Lao-Tseu Watts Valadier
principle, there.
Alan Watts describes indeed something similar in his book "the wisdom
of insecurity", and Valadier, a french jesuit, wrote a remarkable book
where it shows that making moral is immoral.
Gödel's theorem (and Löb, Solovay) provides many solutions, having an
arithmetical content, for such an equation. Indeed all x belonging to
G* \ G obeys to that equation.
With x = Dt (= ~Bf = consistency), you get Gödel's second
incompleteness theorem: Dt -> ~BDt. But DDDDDt is also a solution.
Most formula beginning by D (= ~B ~) are solutions. Correct machines
cannot prove that they cannot prove something.
Tarski's theorem provides even more insightful solutions, which are
analytical, and on which the correct machine can only be mute.
It led me also to a very simple theory of intelligence. A machine is
intelligent if she is not stupid, and a machine is stupid if either
she believes that she is intelligent, or she believes she is stupid.
Aagain incompleteness provides solution. From that I showed that
intelligence has a positive feedback on competence, but that
competence has a negative feedback on intelligence.
Interesting. I wonder if it's so. Whether or not the ultimate Tao
can be described has been the object of all my research-related
thinking for a while now. I finally made a breakthrough this year
on the problem. I still have to manipulate what I think on it and
massage the document about it. At least I can say that I'm not
trying to describe the Tao. I'm trying to describe a description of
the Tao. The reduced product of all structures is my candidate for
my description for a description of the Tao.
Perhaps Lao Tzu already put in his two cents regarding this kind of
TOE.
In "conscience and mechanism" I argue in detail that most of the
writing of Lao-Tseu, Tchouang-Tseu, and especially (my favorite) Lie-
Tseu can be interpreted by the discourse of the self-referentially
correct machine. But Plotinus is closer to us. I have studied
classical chinese and modern chinese, for years, to discuss on Lao-
Tseu with scholars. It is difficult.
Mechanism makes a bridge between Smullyan's "Tao is silent" and
Smullyan's "Forever undecided". I still don't know if Smullyan would
agree on this. Some remark by him makes me think he is not aware of
that connection, or that mechanism favors that connection.
If you like Lao-Tseu, you might appreciate Smullyan's book "tao is
silent".
Bruno
(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
