On 19 Nov 2017 at 10:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Time might be an indexical, like with Mechanism in cognitive science, or like in General Relativity.
Dear Bruno, It would be nice to share with you some agreement, no matter how minute it may be. That said, with regard to the issue of time, I could follow your point of the indexical nature of time so long as the standard tradition of doing sciences is respected. At the same time, one can also raise the question of "What time is it or what time do you have?" quite easily in everyday life. This everyday-life time (that is common time, demeaned by Isaac Newton) is more than simply being indexical. It could also be retro-causative in that if the reading of your wrist watch happens to differ from mine, I may ask myself to correct the preceding setting of timekeeping of mine or decide to negotiate with you what to do so as to remove the discrepancy. That is a new action towards modifying and updating the causes to the clock movements set previously. Its empirical demonstration is seen in various biological clocks. GPS time, that is vital to us these days, has nothing to do with biology. Of course, unless the retrocausal adjustments fail, time to be read out of the finished record by us could safely be indexical. In this case, indexical time is an abstraction from retro-causative time rather than the other way around. Once the retro-causative aspect of time receives due attention, the implication of what is called communication in time may significantly be differentiated depending upon the extent to which time would differ from being merely indexical. All the best, Koichiro Koichiro Matsuno -----Original Message----- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 10:50 PM To: Foundation of Information Science <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] Math, math, math! Dear Koichiro, On 15 Nov 2017, at 01:02, Koichiro Matsuno wrote: > On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: > > I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e., > testable mathematical predictions. > > [KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone. > There is > no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present accessible > in the present tense. I am glad to hear that. Not all mathematicians would agree, but all would agree that this statement is true for what Brouwer called once "the separable part of mathematics", which is very first order elementary arithmetic without induction. With induction, we have problem with the "ultra-intuitionist", who tend to disbelieve in the everywhere definiteness of the exponential function. Those are very rare, but some are very good mathematiciian and are followed rather closely (like when Nelson claimed to have a proof of the inconsistency of Peano Arithmetic, this has been thoroughly investigated until an error was shown, as Nelson admitted: but he seems to still believe that PA is inconsistent). > Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including biology > and communication at large often refer to something not in the present > via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings. I am not sure of this. "we" the humans are certainly "historical beings", but as de Chardin put it, we might be spiritual being living the human experiences, among others. Time might be an indexical, like with Mechanism in cognitive science, or like in General Relativity. > That > must look quite uneasy to mathematicians. Most mathematicians just don't do neither physics, nor psychology, still less theology or metaphysics. They hide their motivation, and they often forget the motivations of those who brought the tools and results they like to develop. Very few logicians seem to be aware that the rise of mathematical logic started from a dispute between unitarian and trinitarian, and the will to make (non-confessional) theology more rigorously (Benjamin Peirce (the father of Charles.S. Peirce), de Morgan, Boole, even Lewis Carroll ...). > One loophole for making it > tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the > mathematical notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does > survive in the finished record but the future trajectories may remain > unfathomable at the present. > Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what could > be persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present tense, > though somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of > concrete particulars. Some people argue that a truth like 2+2=4 is eternal, and true everywhere. But this does not make sense, as the temporal and locality attribute pertain on physical object. At best we might say that 2+2=4 is out of time and place. Such truth is out of the category of things to which time and place/position does not applied. It makes no sense to ask "since when 2 is even?", except poetically or in some colloquial manner. Now, this does not mean that in the context of *some* metaphysical theory/assumption, some possible links between the physical reality and the mathematical (or arithmetical) reality cannot be derived. I have shown, in particular, that if a brain is Turing emulable, then we have to explain the physical appearances, including time and space, as emerging in the form of stable first person plural discourse from a statistic on all computations (which are realized in all interpretations of tiny fragment of Arithmetic, when we assume/accept the Church-Turing thesis). That is testable, and it works up to now, as we recover an intuitionist subject for the "soul/knower", and a quantum logic for the "observable/predictable". Best Regards, Bruno > > Koichiro Matsuno > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of > tozziart...@libero.it > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math! > > Dear FISers, > > My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable > journals, for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly > scientific reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions. > > > Sent from Libero Mobile > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
