Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?

[Bruno Marchal]

Plamen, Loet, Pedro,


> On 2 Mar 2018, at 10:36, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov  
> 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 

[Fis] Welcome, novel weapons!

[tozziarturo]

Dear FISers, Welcome, Dataism!Apart from the suggested "metaphysical" and sociological implications, Dataism, born officially in 2013, provides novel tools and opportunities to an otherwise frustrating landscape.  Indeed, despite the progresses in the very last years, we do not have still the weapons to crack the codes of the life, the brain, the quantum dynamics.  Welcome, therefore, to the novel weapons!So that, I hope, scientists will stop discuss about the (scientifically) useless accounts of Plato, Aristotle, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Maturana, Quine, and so on. Tha ancients are not better, nor wiser, than ourselves. They deserve our respect, but not our faith, because, thinking well, they, due to their lack of scientifical knowledge, said, among a few wise things, a lot of bollocks.  I hope, simply, in fresh tools that could be able to improve our scientific ability to discover novelties.  
 
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis