Re: Janus [was Evidence for the simulation argument ]
Mark, I appreciate your post, and I take any feeling, that what is said here is incompatible with the computationalist hypothesis, as a misunderstanding of what comp could be, or as an absence of knowledge of how computer science and mathematical logic force us to revise our opinion on machine and numbers (natural or not). The Janus image is cute. From any correct machine point of views, incompleteness forces us to recognize that arithmetical truth is a Janus with at least 8 (or 16, or 24, ...) heads. Those unavoidable quite different internal and not always arithmetical view of the arithmetical reality(*) connect all machine dreams in an eventually empirically testable view, and also, contrary to usual physics prevent at the start the usual pre-Loebian pseudo-mechanist or materialist elimination of the person. Bruno (*) For example, from the first person point of view a machine cannot identify herself with ANY machine. When a machine says I am not a machine, if I denotes the first person canonically attached to the machine, such an assertion is correct. I know that this is counter-intuitive. I can provide more technical explanation if asked. Le 21-mars-07, à 18:05, Mark Peaty a écrit : John, with your rich linguistic experience you surely recognise that English [plain or otherwise] is very much a hybrid language - and surely many who are forced to learn it as a second or third language would call it 'b*stard' even. And the way that we native speakers of English use words from other languages is never very consistent, Imp*rialistically exploitative is the stronger tradition. So please don't expect great depth of empathy with Latin or whatever. The point about 'Janus' - who I first heard about through reading the books of Arthur Koestler - is that 'he'? no 'It'! embodies or symbolises some interesting aspects of the part-whole nature of things in the real world. And it was Arthur Koestler who really majored on the pervasive manifestation and influence of part-whole dichotomy-as-integration in nature. My rave about Janus and the quora is an attempt to digest all the strange and seemingly incompatible theories and descriptions trotted out on this and other discussion groups. The Janus incorporates a basic paradoxical feature of the 'real' world: togetherness and separation. The two faces of Janus ARE one entity or feature, like the two sides of a door. Each face must connect with others, and it seems self evident that such a place of connection requires at least three different Jani to be linked together, because just two would not be distinguishable. Part of the reason I go on about this is that I am not satisfied with conceptions of 'arithmetic' being ultimate in nature and somehow immune from entropy. My take on things is that 'existence' per se is ultimately irreducible but we can never get to the bottom of it. Indeed, 'getting to the bottom' of the _Great It_ may be impossible in principle if process physics is the truest description we can find. If basic space time is an eternal process of collapse and simplification in the direction of smallwards, there may be no true smallest thing. Our discovery of the Planck length, etc, and the fact that we live in a world of the characteristic dimensions it appears to have, may be 'just' artefacts or consequences of being the size we are. What I mean is there may be no limits to the range of scales [orders of magnitude] that are possible. One good feature of the 'Janus' concept is that it incorporates existence, connection at potentially vast distance, the potential for 'direction' [because the two faces of Janus are looking opposite ways], the potential for tension and its resolution through simplification [and therefore gravity as drift towards small size], and so forth. Furthermore it does not rule out the possibility that the connections embodied as the Janus connection, are of an indeterminate, fractal nature. This might be reflected in the node or quorum actually being made of [or having] fractional connectivity. I see it as possible that 'numbers' are in fact words, and the 'integers' or 'whole numbers' that we commonly speak of and utilise are actually convenient fabrications humans have created in order to impose order on the world. It is conceivable that everything real is actually a process that can only ever be represented properly with 'quasi-numbers' that only ever exhibit/take fractional values. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ John Mikes wrote: Mark, makes sense - but... *: I hate when people create a new vocabulary to be learned for appropriate use. I made MY vocabulary and the rest of the world should learn it. Adolf H*tler. * Then again I like your 'plain English' of Latin words, grammar and mythology. * We like to mix features of reductionist (conventional) science with more advanced ideas, it is
Re: Janus [was Evidence for the simulation argument ]
John, with your rich linguistic experience you surely recognise that English [plain or otherwise] is very much a hybrid language - and surely many who are forced to learn it as a second or third language would call it 'b*stard' even. And the way that we native speakers of English use words from other languages is never very consistent, Imp*rialistically exploitative is the stronger tradition. So please don't expect great depth of empathy with Latin or whatever. The point about 'Janus' - who I first heard about through reading the books of Arthur Koestler - is that 'he'? no 'It'! embodies or symbolises some interesting aspects of the part-whole nature of things in the real world. And it was Arthur Koestler who really majored on the pervasive manifestation and influence of part-whole dichotomy-as-integration in nature. My rave about Janus and the quora is an attempt to digest all the strange and seemingly incompatible theories and descriptions trotted out on this and other discussion groups. The Janus incorporates a basic paradoxical feature of the 'real' world: togetherness and separation. The two faces of Janus ARE one entity or feature, like the two sides of a door. Each face must connect with others, and it seems self evident that such a place of connection requires at least three different Jani to be linked together, because just two would not be distinguishable. Part of the reason I go on about this is that I am not satisfied with conceptions of 'arithmetic' being ultimate in nature and somehow immune from entropy. My take on things is that 'existence' per se is ultimately irreducible but we can never get to the bottom of it. Indeed, 'getting to the bottom' of the _Great It_ may be impossible in principle if process physics is the truest description we can find. If basic space time is an eternal process of collapse and simplification in the direction of smallwards, there may be no true smallest thing. Our discovery of the Planck length, etc, and the fact that we live in a world of the characteristic dimensions it appears to have, may be 'just' artefacts or consequences of being the size we are. What I mean is there may be no limits to the range of scales [orders of magnitude] that are possible. One good feature of the 'Janus' concept is that it incorporates existence, connection at potentially vast distance, the potential for 'direction' [because the two faces of Janus are looking opposite ways], the potential for tension and its resolution through simplification [and therefore gravity as drift towards small size], and so forth. Furthermore it does not rule out the possibility that the connections embodied as the Janus connection, are of an indeterminate, fractal nature. This might be reflected in the node or quorum actually being made of [or having] fractional connectivity. I see it as possible that 'numbers' are in fact words, and the 'integers' or 'whole numbers' that we commonly speak of and utilise are actually convenient fabrications humans have created in order to impose order on the world. It is conceivable that everything real is actually a process that can only ever be represented properly with 'quasi-numbers' that only ever exhibit/take fractional values. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ John Mikes wrote: Mark, makes sense - but... *: I hate when people create a new vocabulary to be learned for appropriate use. I made MY vocabulary and the rest of the world should learn it. Adolf H*tler. * Then again I like your 'plain English' of Latin words, grammar and mythology. * We like to mix features of reductionist (conventional) science with more advanced ideas, it is an excellent way to secure endless discussions. Like e.g. the SU.. I rather spread my 'I dunno' into the vagueness of my narratives, suggest what we might find (out?) in the future and scratch those assumptions that *in my views* serve only the purpose to make model-theories better believable (calculable?). * If I got it right, your 'ianus' is sometimes called relation and the quorum may be referred to as (network) nodes or hubs in some other vocabulary. (quorum, btw. looks to me as a plural genitive of the pronoun qui quae quod in masculine or neutral (quarum being the feminine), also used pars pro toto for the existing total construct mostly in human assemblages. Accordingly my Latin disallows to form a simple plural of it, since it is not a noun within the neutral o-based conjugation. (Yet, you may say: 'quorums'). (I learned this 74-75 years ago, so please do correct me if someone has more recent and unmatching memories). You start well with * so-called Dark matter may simply be vortex knots that neither generate nor receive gliders... but continue within the subatomic 'particle' lingo,( of which Enrico Fermi quipped: If I knew that much Greek, I could be a botanic. ) Best regards John M On 3/14/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
