Plamen, Loet, Pedro,
> On 2 Mar 2018, at 10:36, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I know him: his name is God, the meta-observer + meta-actor at the same time. > Correct, Bruno? God has no name that can be invoked … in the antic greek scientific approach of theology. So it is only a subject of inquiry and never an answer. The God of plato was arguably the notion of truth, with the understanding that it transcend us, or is “beyond” us, or bigger than us. But then who are “us”? The use of “God” was as a form of pointer to the question of what is real, with the doubt about the natural criterion: what we see is what is real, that Aristotle will yet come back on, and which please our sense and intuition. Now, if we start from some theological assumption like Mechanism (the believe that we can survive some digital transformation), then, the constraints of digitalness are enough big and counterintuitive to be able to refute Aristotle theology (where God is the physical reality) and to force the rationalist to envisage a coming back of the God of the Pythagoreans: the Numbers, or the arithmetical reality. Indeed, it is a proven fact that the elementary arithmetic reality emulates (executes, run, …, in the precise mathematical sense of Church, Turing, Kleene, …) *all* computations, and it is a fact that a universal machine cannot distinguish by introspection if it is run by an arithmetical relation or any Turing universal machinery. It is also a fact that such computations are implemented in arithmetic in a highly distributed way, and that observation provides information coming from a self-localization in an infinite distribution, and highly structured, complex net of computations. The structure is imposed by the mathematics of computability versus provability versus knowability versus observability, all modes of the universal machine ability to refers to itself. So when Pedro asks “The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within the concreteness down to the bottom.”, I would suggest the concept of universal machine, or universal word, number, digital program, etc. It is something very general, and admitting many very particular instances, yet all mimicking each other in arithmetic. But this leads to the reversal between physics and number’s psychology/theology. We are distributed in infinitely many computations, making any attempt to predict anything into a statistics on all computations, again structured by the universal machine ability to refer to itself. That makes mechanism testable, and indeed, this leads to quantum logic for the logic of the observable of (any) universal machine/number. Yet, that means that there is no physical bottom, or that the physical bottom is not really a bottom, but a statistical sum on infinities of computations, something rather confirmed by quantum mechanics or quantum filed theory. And that put even constraints on what “God” can be. Unlike a common idea about God, there will be a trade-off between science and potence. Quasi-omniscience leads to quasi-impotence, and the price of potence (ability to act on the reality) leads to loss of science: it looks we cannot have both at once. The finite creature, being participating to the building of the realities, can act by lacking knowledge, and can awaken in the infinite by loosing acting powers. If Mechanism is true, from inside, the arithmetical truth is made equivalent (yet in a necessarily non provable way) with the semi-computable universality, and god is the universal subject associated with the universal machine. It is a not a creator, more like a terrible child, and rarely if ever satisfied despite the range of its distribution. The “correct” machine avoids the contradictory blasphemy by adding an interrogation mark for the propositions corresponding to their true but unjustifiable, and the logic of Gödel-Löb-Solovay, accessible to the machine itself provided a very small amount of inductive abilities, provides the way to handle them with the needed caution. On the propositions which are semi-computable truth and proof meets and join: p <-> []p, but only at the truth level: G* proves []p -> p, but G does not even for p restricted at sigma_1 (semi-computable). Note that G, for p restricted to sigma_1 proves p -> []p, which is what makes the machines Löbian. It directly implies a form of self-referential awareness ([]p is itself sigma_1 so this implies []p -> [][]p). A nice recreative introduction to the key tool here, the modal G, is given by Smullyan’s book “Forever Undecided”. It makes it look like a fairy tale, because the K4 reasoner needs to visit a very special Knight-Knaves Island, but that is the case for all self-referential relatively finite entities by Gödel Diagonal Lemma (or by Kleene’s second recursion theorem). With the number there are two sort of information: the usual gossip (Did you know that all odd square are sum of 1 with 8 triangular numbers! Oh!), and the hard kick back of the infinitely many universal computations which makes them sharing stable and long stories/dreams, which most of the time are beyond words. They are captured by the “variants à-la Theaetetus” of Gödel’s provability/believability predicate of the (arithmetically sound and universal) machine. God observes, maybe, silently. We still have to do the work, if and when we return in the Village ... Hope this helps. I feel like people miss the universal person, which is the one making sense of (any possible) truth, behind the universal (Turing) machine. Not an answer, but an incredible unknown getting quickly many names and rising some mess already in Pythagorus Heaven! A universal number transforms a number into an history, but below our substitution level, they are *all* participating in some sort of competitions, not so different from Feynman-Everett formulation of Quantum Mechanics, as it should and should be continued to be scrutinised. Mechanism in philosophy of mind is incompatible with mechanism in philosophy of matter, or for consciousness, and still less about truth/god. Mechanism is a vaccine against reductionism, as its shows the machine’s first person ([]p & p) can defeat all the third person theories attempting to identify them. The soul of the machine knows that she is not a machine! Bruno > > best, > > Plamen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear Pedro, Koichiro, and colleagues, > > At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the change > of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case). The > communication, however, as a system different from the communicators may > contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to redirect. > > Best, > Loet > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> > Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; > Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; > > Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en> > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Koichiro Matsuno" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: 3/2/2018 6:41:12 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer? > >> On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: >> >> A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the >> focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. >> >> Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers >> for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete >> participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what >> would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. >> At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen >> to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to >> its emergence would be the well-being of each participant taken care of >> locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of >> life. The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, >> and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within >> the concreteness down to the bottom. >> >> >> >> Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from >> computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. >> Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points >> is not available to the local participants because of the lack of the >> physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among >> themselves. >> >> >> >> Koichiro Matsuno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > [email protected] > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
