On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical
interactions as they each contain the laws of physics; and
collectively they may manifest consciousness as well as perhaps
Platonia and "cyclic gossiping" as their variable properties across
the universe may manifest a Peano arithmetic. Regarding communication
each spherical element/manifold instantly maps all the other
manifolds and all physical phenomena to its interior.
I am highly skeptical of string theory because of its Landscape
problem, the lack of observational evidence of super-partner
particles, the fact that it is not back-ground independent and its
underlying philosophical assumptions. All that aside, I will take a
look at the referenced paper.
I like your paper! I would like to point out something. You quoted
(1) Assume my reasoning powers are captured by some formal system F (to
put this more briefly, "I am
F"). Consider the class of statements I can know to be true, given this
(2) Given that I know that I am F, I know that F is sound (as I know
that I am sound). Indeed, I know that
the larger system F' is sound, where F' is F supplemented by the further
assumption "I am F".
(Supplementing a sound system with a true statement yields a sound system.)
(3) So I know that G(F') is true, where this is the Gödel sentence of
the system F'.
(4) But F' could not see that G(F') is true (by Gödel's theorem).
(5) By assumption, however, I am now effectively equivalent to F'. After
all, I am F supplemented by the
knowledge that I am F.
(6) This is a contradiction, so the initial assumption must be false,
and F must not have captured my
powers of reasoning after all.
(7) The conclusion generalizes: my reasoning powers cannot be captured
by any formal system.
This reminds me of problematic sentences in logic such as "Stephen
cannot know the truth value of this sentence". While I can only
inconsistently speculated on the truth value of that sentence, you, not
being Stephen, can consistently determine its truth value. I see this as
arguing that truth values are quantities that are strictly local and not
Since I am a HUGE fan of Leibniz, I like the Monad-like quality
that you are considering with the concept of a CYCM, but wonder if the
particular geometric properties are being arbitrarily selected. It seems
to me that any monadic construction will do so long as it can support a
self-referential logic, such as Peano Arithmetic. Additionally, how do
we deal with the apparently bosonic property of minds given the very
fermionic property of matter. Could supersymmetry really be a theory of
the mind-body problem? Some people, like Matti Pitkanen,
<http://matpitka.blogspot.com/> think so and I sympathize with this
view. But it still seems to assume too much. Maybe this is just the
price of a theory. ;-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at