Whew Neil, I lack the time to grasp it well, though my instincts tell me
to re-skim Pierce and modal logics to find out why it sounds so
familiar. In my limited view S4 really bites us in the cognitive bias
(meh, posterior) and Deutsche lays that out well on counterfactuals IMO.
Hope I get more time soon to compare his robot with the 3,2,1
configuration in Trikonic geometry (while fresh in memory).
Again, it points me toward a much less dramatic revolution for our
equation (depending on which emotions one prefers), transhumanism one
way or another (good and or bad), a very exciting time in the
anthropocene is it not? :p
Hope all is well everyone!
Best Regards
On 11/16/2012 11:14 AM, archytas wrote:
arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Should produce David Deutsch's paper free.
This is a good example of science philosophy trying to shift thinking
boundaries. There's some physics in it, but probably not enough to
put off a few readers in here. David works on how science may be
restricted by our traditional myths of origin - and that we tend to
posit origins (Big Bang etc.) that may be as unhelpful as god concepts
to science (as opposed to spiritual discussion).
He also challenges ideas of mathematical a priori - such as Kant's
claim to know the geometry of the universe in such a manner.
The paper is speculative and I read it because I'm tinkering with
ideas of what economics might be if it was a science. I'm not a
believer in scientific method beyond tropical fish realism. What has
always struck me about economics is that it seems the prime reason for
not doing things because it renders our hopes impossible. A truly
scientific theory seeks to show us what is possible and what won't
work. We make the Higgs' boson (or at least get to see some of its
decay particles) from hydrogen in several kilometres of the LHC at
CERN and shouldn't forget the construction involved.
Classical constructors in science are catalysts. Biology is full of
them. David says the ultimate constructor may be knowledge and we
might be able to get to a sensible theory of human beings as such.
The 'unit' he is proposing is the task. I guess the problem he
wrestles with is the way we become technicians of dogma.
I'm fairly sure my own revulsion with economics is based on the Bible
story of kicking over the tables of the money-lenders. David Graeber
has a book out suggesting religion was much more concerned with that
through history and rebellion against debt..
Origin in physics is not really Big Bang (or any of the alternatives)
and remains prone to the 'turtle argument' (the world is held up by a
turtle, so what holds up the turtle - another turtle, then another
turtle until, after that, its turtles all the way down).
--
