On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 4:42:28 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 7 Mar 2019, at 23:00, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 11:47:41 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 22:10, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> We cannot predict in advance if a machine will stop. The extensional >>> equality of machines, or combinators, is unsolvable. >>> >>> >> >> There is some conceptual and practical division between mathematics and >> applied mathematics >> >> >> Yes. But note that the division we can made there are dependent of the >> metaphysics. >> >> Then Gödel has shown that we can apply mathematics to metamathematics, >> and that a large part of metamathematics is in mathematics, so mathematics >> have application in mathematics. But that is obvious through the >> representation theorems, and my factors. We can say that the theory of >> complex analysis has found extraordinary application in the pure number >> theory, like Riemann discovered. >> >> Category theory is born from the discovery of abstract pattern relying >> many application of some branch of math to another branch of math. It helps >> mathematician to not reinvent the wheel all the time. >> >> >> >> (and there are institutionally separate Mathematics (PM, P for "Pure") >> and Applied Mathematics (AM) Departments or Divisions at *some* >> universities. >> >> >> Yes. That has been the root of my problem with some local academician. I >> naively stated that I decide to study mathematics because I saw application >> of mathematical logic (the second recursion theorem) to biology (like I >> have shown in my paper “Amoeba, Planaria and Dreaming machine”. But I was >> told that mathematical logic was taught in the section of Pure Mathematics, >> where it was very badly seen to apply mathematics to anything but >> mathematics. This illustrates it makes no sense to decide that some part of >> math are pure or not. >> >> And this is even more true with mechanism. There is no more an >> ontological physical reality, or any gods of that sort (which have never >> been tested, actually, except with my work, of course, where the test was >> negative for “Matter”). So the fundamental reality becomes mathematical. >> And we are pure mathematical object living in a mathematical reality. That >> is not entirely correct, because the internal phenomenology, for technical >> reason, escapes even the whole of mathematics. So, eventually, the reality >> is theological, to be correct. But the theology of the machines is a >> theory, which today, is classified in pure mathematics (the logic of >> provability). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There is a PM and an AM way of approaching what "computing" is. >> >> >> >> Yes, even in arithmetic. The universal machine discover that there is a >> big difference between being implemented by a nameable “in principle” >> universal number, and being implemented by something emerging from an >> infinity of computations from the first person points of view. The first >> leads to the theory G* (the “scientific theology of the ideally sound >> machine”), and the others leads to quantum logic and physics, and the right >> one, if mechanism is correct. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In an AM way of thinking, no computer can run forever, assuming what >> scientists theorize about the future of the universe (big freeze, crunch, >> etc.). >> >> >> And assuming some physical reality. If you do serious metaphysics, it is >> better to invoke an ontological commitment only in last ressort. Invoking >> an ontological or primary physical universe is like saying “and god made >> it”. That does not work. It is wishful thinking, provably if Mechanism is >> assumed. >> >> >> >> >> >> AM would see computing as being nothing more than what can be done on >> material computers, natural or manmade. >> >> >> Computation have been discovered in arithmetic, before physics. >> >> Of course, the fact that we have cells and brains suggest, once we >> understand that a computation is an arithmetical notion, that the physical >> reality too is Turing complete. But with mechanism, to solve the mind-body >> problem, you have to derive the physical reality (and its Turing >> completeness) from arithmetic. It is nota question of choice. >> >> Of course you can say that in your religion, machine cannot have souls, >> that you are not a machine, and so you can believe in the fantasy you want. >> That is what we do since we have put theology out of science (just to make >> it possible for some tyran to exploit people). >> >> Or you can try to build a precise non computationalist theory of mind, >> and how to test it, in which case the computationalist theory will gives >> many hint. Indeed, if some logics the universal machine gives for matter is >> contradicted by nature, we do have a precise hint how to transform the >> machine theory to get a correct non mechanist theory. >> Today, such theory does not exist, Nature follows perfectly well >> Mechanism,and the theory of apparent matter given by all classical >> universal machine, thanks to QM. >> >> There is no evidence for your metaphysical ontological commitment. Given >> that it makes the mind-body problem unsolvable since a long time, and that >> mechanism explains consciousness and matter already, up to the infinite >> confirmation we must test, like any theory about any reality. We never know >> any publicly communicable truth. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> > I was a Brown University student 1971-1979 (all 3 degrees: bachelors, > masters, Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics). > > There is: > > Division of Applied Mathematics > Department of Mathematics > Department of Philosophy > > Why the word "Division" instead of "Department" came in front I'm not > sure (it divided from the Mathematics department?), but it began at the end > of WWII to be a link to US federal government interest in applying > mathematics to science. The Division divided :) in 1979, spinning off > Department of Computer Science. > > The subject of Mathematic Logic (all the incompleteness theorems, etc.) is > taught in Department of Philosophy. > > > Good point for your department of philosophy. Here, it was done in the > department of pure mathematics, and it was badly seen to apply logic, even > in computer science. > > > > > Still is in 2019 I think. That Department is where the mathematical > logicians are. > > The general mindset (at the time): Mathematics is the fun stuff, Applied > Mathematics is the real stuff. But there is crossover. > > > Such distinction pure/applied can make sense for the curriculum, but does > not make any absolute sense, and should not be taken too much seriously. > Pure today, applicable tomorrow. There is no crisp frontier. > > Philosophy when I was young was marxiste philosophy, and the motto was an > apology of USSR, and a bashing against the US, … In that time, not only you > could not tabor doubt against materialism in metaphysics, but you could not > even critize “dialectical materialism”. The faculty of science was a mix of > serious good willing people, and very ignorant and violent persons. > > Unlike the flemish part of the university, or unlike the nearby catholic > university, philosophers never et with the scientists. Logic, Gödel’s > theorem, was considered as pure mathematics only. It was forbidden even for > the late department of computer science, hold by physicist, without any > mathematicians. > > Bruno > > > I am an experiential materialist - matter itself has both informationality and experientiality - (like Strawson), and define Codicalism as the dialectics of *language* and matter. - https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/language-matter-dialectics/
Language includes mathematics and scientific theories - like the Standard Model, Einstein Field Equations, etc. They are all "fictionalist". In the later case they may be "useful" fictions. I never quite got into the mood to delve deeply into dialectical materialism (Marxism). In economic terms, the dialectics of the welfare state (a blending of capitalism and socialism) is enough. - pt -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
