> On 28 Oct 2019, at 09:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 5:08 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > "[Physical science] was designed to give mathematical models that can > > accurately predict the behavior of matter, and that's gone really well, but > > it was never designed to deal with the subjective qualities of > > consciousness." (@Philip_Goff) > https://edge.org/conversation/philip_goff-a-post-galilean-paradigm > <https://edge.org/conversation/philip_goff-a-post-galilean-paradigm> > > If numbers don't work for describing the subjective qualities of > consciousness there is no evidence words can do any better. As Ludwig > Wittgenstein said "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". > Maurice Switzer said it even better "It is better to remain silent at the > risk of being thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt of it”.
After Gödel, Turing, Church we can be sure of one thing: we don’t know what universal machine are incapable of. Wen we build computer, we don’t know what we are doing. Of course, we rarely knows the long term of our actions, and that is normal given that we do know that we are ourselves Turing universal. Bruno > > > > The mathematical language that is currently used (like that in EFE and QFT) > may only go so far. (We don't even know yet what gravity is.) Who knows what > might be useful in the future (e.g. mereotoplogy*)? > > But we could be leaving an age of analysis to enter an age of synthesis. We > may be synthesizing things (materials science, synthetic biology, > nanotechnology) that we cannot analyze (explain why they work). > > > * The basis for mereotopology is mereology which is a formal theory of > parthood. It was first introduced in Husserl’s Logical Investigations; > previously, it had received attention from those such as Plato, Aristotle, > Aquinas, Leibniz, and Kant. Specifically, it has proven helpful for > disciplines such as natural-language analysis and artificial intelligence > where more of an ontological motivation is desired. With the addition of > topology, we derive mereotopology and become able to speak of partwhole > relations. We, thus, become able to better understand the a priori nature of > boundaries and holes, and we try to apply this to the questions philosophers > and ontologists have been asking about these entities. Is a boundary an > independent being? Do we view holes as immaterial particulars or > spatiotemporal particulars? > > http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2017/REUPapers/Rachavelpula.pdf > <http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2017/REUPapers/Rachavelpula.pdf> > > > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4cb834c6-8ca1-4fe6-92d3-087019c3de08%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4cb834c6-8ca1-4fe6-92d3-087019c3de08%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/362CC5D9-BC76-44CD-A152-B0A2DCF50CE9%40ulb.ac.be.
