The Turing hypothesis is wrong, as Penrose goes on endlessly about. It only deals with computable functions, and the world is simply not made up of only computable functions. Unsolvability theory deals with some of the stuff formally; Penrose shows as well that things like the collapse of the wave equation aren't modelled that way. I don't know your friend, but the physicist friends I've known (mainly Bohm and Finkelstein) would not have made that claim.
There are monotheisms and monotheisms. I'm referencing those that are based on a 'figure' who is human and problematic, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc. It's a different situation. That's why I'm careful to say "linear narratives" etc. - it's not just monotheism, it's monotheism and body.
As far as the math goes - I'm not sure what math you're talking about when you say "no one." I don't claim to be a mathematician but god knows I've talked with them. Perhaps your friend doesn't know quantum mechanics? I have no idea - Alan
On Thu, 12 May 2005, David-Baptiste Chirot wrote:
Actually, monotheism--comes from the Jewish tradition predating the Christain and Islamic monotheisms. The white hole is actually--as you have the three in one--three traditions of the one (God).
Re the analog/digital discussion--I shared some of the posts with a friend who works as an "architect" of computer programs. He pointed out that the Turing hypothesis proposes that everything in nature can be reproduced digitally. So far there is nothing that has proved this wrong.
He also pointed out the same thing a physicist friend had noted: that in this discussion, no one knows the math. Words, language are being substituted for the lack of math--and it results in confusion. What is being discussed is actually not understood. Without knowing the mathematics they say, much of the philosophy is also muddled.
>From: Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "WRYTING-L : Writing and Theory across Disciplines" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: ....A./D. >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 00:31:13 -0400 > >....A./D. > > >...Analog digital / analog discrete, but also Anno Domini; one can only >point out that linear time from 0 moves through both negative and >positive numbers; the years are integers, the continuum backgrounded. >A/D: Monothe- ism's gift, this or that, before or after; A/D: the >continuum of time re/produced as discrete. The year 0 of our lord, the >year 1 of our lord. This is the trouble with religions or ideologies >with monolithic and linear narratives apparently grounded in specific >and human events - everything proceeds like a white hole out of them. >Of course every system, however broken, has its accountancy; I am >punning here on A./D., the ferociousness of this division, and from the >viewpoint of believers - as if humankind were waiting for this, the >insertion of our lord into history, breaking history, remaking the >codex of dates. Islam is similar. With monotheisms it's all gone bad; >the fabrication carries a suspect political ideology, as if the world >has waited for year 0 and the insertion of a related temporal >framework. This is what happens when there's a guy - Jesus or Mohammed >or whomever - involved. The construct of absolute time is equivalent to >absolute negative and positive, right or wrong. Clearly history doesn't >start or end with the guy, so one counts forwards and backwards from >him. But he's there as a stopper, transformation, wave equation >collapse, as deadly as Schrodinger's cat might be. > >Somewhere Weyl wrote about the last vestige of the self/ego in >physics - >the Cartesian origin. The guy hangs out there, claims the origin for >himself/itself, refuses to recognize the tensor algebra of the thing >which >isn't a thing. It's be-all and end-all for him. Time begins, marches >forward or backward, a permanent light-cone. The rest are its >children. > >( Note that this absolute time is _finite,_ that it begins and ends, >that >the origin is _historical._ And note that so many other systems >portend a >creation behind/beyond which numeracy was non-existent; the numbers >begin >in mythic time. So there are configurations that are lost in essence >- not >a guy hanging out, as if known by one and all. There's always the >problem >of the divine with historical time; mythos turns to miracles, Jesus >doing >this or that, almost like a party. Three and one is one by the way; >for >any absolute finite X here, X -> 1, I believe it is called a >_kernel._ ) > > >===
________________________________________________________________________________ Find just what you're after with the new, more precise MSN Search - try it now!
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )
