On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote: > > I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a > mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs > about the mathematical nature of the universe. > > > But Gödel + Church + Kleene + Post + Turing + Matiyazevich... discovery > *is* the discovery that just the arithmetical reality if full of entities, > machines, and non-machines, which struggle to understand what happens, and > develop true and false beliefs around the subject. > But does "arithmetical reality" exist outside of the human mind? I would tend to say - no. The human mind entertains concepts. This is one of them. > > This is proved. What is not proved is that they are conscious, but they > need to be if you assume that there is no magic (actual infinities, > non-local 3p influences, 3p indeterminacies) playing in the brain. > So there is no way that that GR+QFT+IC can (in principle) mechanistically explain observed human behavior and mathematical ability? I am not referring to the first person subjective experience. Just the third person observed behavior. Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random > (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions > lead to the development of beings who are then able to correctly (or even > approximately) discover those physical laws and initial conditions. > > If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since evolution > seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not truth. So how do > evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory like that? > > > But a scientist will never say that <anything> is true. He will just say > what he believes in, knowing he might be wrong. > We can only hope getting close to the truth, but even in arithmetic, lies > can be consistent, and truth can depart from wishes, etc. > > However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not true) - > this is more consistent - since it also predicts that evolved beings will > develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling) theories. > > > "usefulness" would reduce science to instrumentalism, and then the > question which will be forbid will be "instrument for what"? Torture? > Correct. I like instrumentalism. Instrument for what? For whatever we want. As a tool for accomplishing our goals. Whatever they may be. > But you are right, truth is not always useful, but lies makes things > harder, and should be avoided in most situations, I think. > > I think I understand why you think consciousness "precedes" logic and > arithmetic. I think that this is coherent with the first person view of the > "universal person", as consciousness is atemporal at that level, and is the > origin of all possible consciousness content. But that is still an inside > view. That general consciousness is the atemporal consciousness of the > löbian machine, and perhaps even just the universal one. It is something > approximated by > > <>t? & <>t > > It is an unconscious "Am I consistent?" in consistent situation. It is > also a semantical fixed point. It provides the meaning of "meaning" > somehow, and let the senses filtered it into consistent scenarios. > I tend to think that, like information, meaning is a difference that makes a difference. Which is to say, meaning is a felt difference that makes a felt difference. Which is to say, meaning is a difference in conscious experience that feels like it makes a difference to conscious experience. Which is to say, that our consciousness is just a web of felt differences that feel like they have some significance. As to what accounts to all of these differences - a "useful" way of looking at it is is that they are a product of evolution's focus on survival and reproduction. Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
