|
Author
|
Topic: Cosmogony, Holography and Causality
|
DN
Member
Member # 996
|
posted 20. November 2003 01:41
Dear Russel,
You do realize you havent responded to my posts dont you? I think its a shame.
There is a difference between a principle (something to guide us in explaining reality) being logical and reality itself being logical. Understanding of madness and madness itself are not the same thing.
MU, which expresses syndiffeonic symmetry of syntax and content on the spatiotemporal level of reality, is tangential to M=R and principle of linguistic reducibility: you are attempting to muddy the water and introduce red herrings - please desist from that.
Before shifting the argument to multiplex unity (there will be plenty of time for that), lets thrash out this "common syntax" argument first please.
[ 20. November 2003, 02:00: Message edited by: DN ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DN
Member
Member # 996
|
posted 20. November 2003 02:10
IOW, I see no paradox between cognition being illogical and at the same time being logical.
This is like saying impossible images exist except they do not exist.
Perharps you are inadvertently sneaking in absurdity in the cloak of paradox?
Are you attempting to get a handle on your 2VL conundrum?
No need to, just refute my arguments.
Remember, you have always quipped that the abstract is a mental representation of concrete?
And that everything mental (e.g. illogic) has physical instances distributed over reality?
And that cognition is isomorphic (mapped) to reality - coz they use comon syntax - logic?
Bear these in mind, Dear Russel, as you click "Post Reply". Please be consistent with those claims in your response.
[ 20. November 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: DN ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 20. November 2003 02:26
quote:
MU, which expresses syndiffeonic symmetry of syntax and content on the spatiotemporal level of reality, is tangential to M=R and principle of linguistic reducibility: you are attempting to muddy the water and introduce red herrings - please desist from that.
MAP, MU, and M=R are the three metalogical axioms. They are recursively related, not tangental.
Tie your own self in knots?
IP: Logged
|
|
DN
Member
Member # 996
|
posted 20. November 2003 11:03
quote:
MAP, MU, and M=R are the three metalogical axioms. They are recursively related, not tangental.
I will respectfully await your forthcoming substantive response.
Tangential does not mean unrelated. You needn't construct strawman arguments now.
Your substantive response please.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 23. November 2003 21:18
[ abstract representation]------[semantic mapping]------>[represented system]
The abstract representation cannot be an "exact" semantic mapping with the physical system, since every nuance, or aspect, of the represented physical system cannot be observed. Is it possible to explain the exact semantic mapping as a converging limit, or converging series of axioms, that is approached but never reached?
The burden of proof would then be to "prove" that the limit is converging.
Start with an unspecified variable, for example, X.
X is an analytic proposition, then proceed with the a deductive process of deriving axioms.
Then in the opposite direction, start with the scientific method, utilizing an inductive limit, or more specifically, a series of deductive falsifications beginning with Newton's classical reality.
Let this be N.
Two converging limits, that intersect at infinity.
X---->[represented system]<----N
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 23. November 2003 22:03
quote:
I seem unable to convey the critical distinctions between content and structure, and between model-of-reality and reality-itself.
Yes, Rex, I share your apparent frustration.
And having no time for a while, I shall have to leave the commenting to others.
Russel seems to answer time and time again the question of whether models agree with reality by posing yet another model, and noting that the model itself might be 'crip' that the problem has been solved.
This of course does not answer the question of whether that (or any) model actually conforms to reality--or to what degree.
Sorry once again, but beyond that I shall not be able to respond for several weeks I suspect.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 24. November 2003 00:50
Are Gedankin and Rex saying that it is impossible for the perfect correspondence to exist as a converging limit?
1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.
2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists.
3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
DN
Member
Member # 996
|
posted 24. November 2003 01:42
The fallacy that Reality theory/ model = Reality (principle of linguistic reducibility plus M=R) is based on one major assumption which is undergirded by another assumption:
1. That there exists a logical link that binds the percept to the percepient. That logic integrates (or maps) what is and what is known. Reality is structured logically to allow cognition (what is and what is not - 2VL) and perception.
2. That reality and cognition is based on the rules of logic (i.e. they share a common syntax). This allows a participatory universe wherein an observer can influence the outcomes of events in a spatiotemporal lattice/manifold that the universe is (collapse of the wavefunction). This results in a universe made of cognition (minds) and information (thus infocognitive monism is supposed to bridge the explanatory gap of mind-matter cartesian duality).
Thus the universe is self-creating recursively self-explaining because the minds influence what is and interact with reality both in creation and evolution of states in a linguistic (automata-like), rule-based, logical manner. (telic feedback incorporates cybernetic feedback, cybernetic feedback and information feedback)
I will now demonstrate that this idea of a conscious universe is based on false reasoning and is wholly fallacious.
First, lets sample some quotes from the CTMU paper:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything that can be described or conceived, including every structure or process or law, is isomorphic to a description or definition and therefore qualifies as a language, and every sentient creature constantly affirms the linguistic structure of nature by exploiting syntactic isomorphism to perceive, conceptualize and refer to it."
Langan, C. M., The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory, p.2
"...two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist. If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible." op cit., p. 13
"Cognition and perception comprise the primitive (self-definitive) basis of logic, and logic comprises the rules of structure and inference under which perception and cognition are stable and coherent." op cit., p.14
"the expressions of SCSPL are dynamic informational configurations of information-processors, implying that SCSPL everywhere consists of information and acceptive-transductive syntax in a state of logical intersection." op cit., p. 43
"Together, information and syntax comprise infocognition, self-transducing information in the form of SCSPL syntactic operators that cross-absorptively “communicate” by acquiring each other’s informational states as cognitive-syntactic content." ibid
"After all, the CTMU is so-named because it is a symmetric cross-interpretation of mental and physical reality, logically mapping the concrete universe into an abstract theory of generalized cognition and vice versa according to the M=R Principle." op cit., p. 48
"anything which does not conform to the syntax of logic is inconsistent and therefore not a part of any stable, coherent reality." op cit., p. 49
"...logic is wholly based on, and defined strictly within the bounds of, cognition and perception; it applies to everything that can be coherently perceived or conceived" op cit., p13
"M=R goes beyond the mere Kantian isomorphism between phenomenal reality and the categories of thought and perception; it says that syntax and its content are recursively related,..." op cit., p. 22
main quote:
The M=R or Mind Equals Reality Principle asserts that mind and reality are ultimately inseparable to the extent that they share common rules of structure and processing...To put it another way: if the “noumenal” (perceptually independent) part of reality were truly
unrelated to the phenomenal (cognition-isomorphic) part, then these two “halves” of reality would neither be coincident nor share a joint medium relating them. In that case, they would simply fall apart, and any integrated “reality” supposedly containing both of them would fail for lack of an integrated model. Where M (mind) is identified with cognition and R (reality) with physically-embodied information, M=R says that reality everywhere consists of a common substance,
infocognition, having the dual nature of mind and (informational) reality. op. cit.,p. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its one argument that has two minor variations:
Argument 1
1. Logic comprises the rules of structure and inference under which perception and cognition are stable and coherent. Everything that can be coherently perceived or conceived, is based on logic.
2. Reality is stable and coherent.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is based on logic.
(i.e. logic guides perception & perception perceives reality -> reality is logical)
Argument 2
1. Perception and cognition are based on logical rules of structure and inference.
2. Everything perceived or conceived maps to logical rules of structure and inference.
3. Reality can be conceived and perceived.
Conclusion: Therefore reality is based on logic.
(i.e. perception is based on logic & reality is perceived -> therefore reality is based on [or isomorphic to] logic)
Based on the above, the CTMU represents reality as a language (SCSPL), and as a stratified, panpsychist, spatiotemporal manifold that has hologically distributed infocognitive states linked with logical syntax and constraints (MAP, MU and infocognitive monism) with state transitions guided by the telic principle.
Constraints here help to maintain recognizability and contribute in making reality stable and coherent, while allowing reality to be a self-excited circuit through observer participation (wavefunction collapse etc) and hence promotes the M=R concept and via conspansion, requantization atemporally occurs which helps achieve maximal global self-utility.
Refutation
1. Anything that is not stable and coherent under the logical rules of structure cannot be perceived or conceived.
2. Therefore the mind cannot conceive that which is not logical because there would be no mapping (isomorphism) between the conceived and the mind.
But the mind can both conceive and produce illogic.
Therefore, perception and cognition are NOT based on logical rules of structure and inference. Hence argument 1 and 2 are unsound because they are based on false premises.
What if one argues that reality (or the mind as per M=R) is a (self-resolving) paradox?
[AFAIK, when a paradox is resolved, it ceases to exist]
If one argues that reality or the mind is both based on logic and based on illogic (a paradox), then one would violate sentential logic: X v~ X (X or NOT X) without which, as Langan argues above, reality would cease to exist.
Thus the argument that reality is paradoxical is self-defeating and is illogical because it would render perception and cognition (reality) impossible.
Thus the CTMU is false.
Q.E.D. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 24. November 2003, 01:48: Message edited by: DN ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 24. November 2003 06:27
I'm not saying that a perfect correspondence is impossible in the limit. I'm merely saying that you cannot assume that it must exist. There's a very important distinction! And indeed, I'm arguing that the balance of the evidence casts considerable doubt on the speculation that such a limit does exist in a meaningful sense.
Point 1 seems to have problems with cases where you have two identical universes, with one unfolding at 1/10th the rate of the other. The second is a model of every aspect of the first, but I wouldn't really call it God. In fact, I'd call it useless, as it unfolds too slow to say anything about the fast universe.
Also, point 2 clearly has counterexamples. For example, the limit of (1/x) has every value for x>=1 in the interval (0,1], but lim[x->infinity](1/x) is not in (0,1]. In general, the limit exists iff the points are drawn from a compact set. (This is the definition of "compact set".)
Also, given your familiarity with physics, you should be aware of cases in e.g. perturbation theory where physicists use the first few terms of a series expansion to get good results, even though taking all terms in the expansion causes divergence to infinity! (Incidentally, this drives mathematicians nuts.)
Point 3 would seem to follow from (1) and (2), though.
IP: Logged
|
|
DN
Member
Member # 996
|
posted 24. November 2003 10:41
Someone PMd me on my post and referred me to Hume's work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,David Hume, 1748.
Hume argued that even though illogic is recognizable, it is inconceivable.
For example the proposition that that 2+2 = 56.9 is inconceivable
It is inconceivable that a circle has four corners. Therefore illogic is inconceivable.
This would be my take on illogic being conceivable.
Someone may argue as follows (affirming the consequent).
1. The Intelligently designed systems cannot be explained using darwinian pathways.
2. The flagellum cannot be explained via darwinian mechanisms.
3. Therefore the flagellum was Intelligently Designed.
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
This is illogic. It is not only conceivable, but it is also recognizable.
So "the source of knowledge" (cognition), can indeed be illogical.
Better yet, does the child who writes 9 x 9 = 99 have a mind - if the mind is designed to work logically - and is therefore incapable of illogic?
Like Rex has argued (IIRC), 'thinking' is learned/honed. Thats why we spend up to 24 years getting what is called education.
[ 24. November 2003, 10:45: Message edited by: DN ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DN
Member
Member # 996
|
posted 24. November 2003 11:03
Rex wrote:
quote:
I'm merely saying that you cannot assume that it must exist. There's a very important distinction!
I agree.
Perfect correspondence between the mind and reality is IMPOSSIBLE. Russel has admitted as much in this very thread (remember Madonna?)
Perfect correspondence between a reality model and reality is also impossible because it would render the two (reality model and reality)inseparable - when a volcano erupts in the amazon at 2.45 pm, it must also erupt in the reality theory - like a mirror image.
It wouldn't describe reality: it would be indistinguishable from reality.
As far as super-intelligence goes: a man that can push and stop a 30,000,000 tonne train travelling at 600 Km/hr from hitting a beautiful lady, using his bare hands would be superman. But that is only good for entertainment.
Heck, sometimes I ask myself what I would do if I were paid $ 5000 per month?
Lets discuss science please.
There is a joke:
Luhya people like maize meals a lot and aplenty.
So, this Luhya man was walking by a swimming pool. Then he was seen to stop.
He stood by the pool, arms folded accross his chest, looking at the pool
He gazed deeply into the pool.
His pensive stance caught the attention of a passerby. The passerby drew closer to him, adopted his position and attempted to look at the pool expecting to see something out of the ordinary.
He saw nothing remarkable and made to walk away but casually asked the pensive Luhya:
"What are you looking at?"
The luhya pulled him closer. Brought his face next to the man's face and waving at the pool, he asked the man:
Now, just imagine: If all this was soup, what would be the size of the maize meal?
Thats what Russel is asking - imagine a reality model that could have perfect correspondence to reality: the mind that could conceive such a reality would be a superintelligence.
[ 24. November 2003, 11:13: Message edited by: DN ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 24. November 2003 14:21
quote:
Rex:
I'm not saying that a perfect correspondence is impossible in the limit. I'm merely saying that you cannot assume that it must exist. There's a very important distinction! And indeed, I'm arguing that the balance of the evidence casts considerable doubt on the speculation that such a limit does exist in a meaningful sense.
[...]
Also, given your familiarity with physics, you should be aware of cases in e.g. perturbation theory where physicists use the first few terms of a series expansion to get good results, even though taking all terms in the expansion causes divergence to infinity! (Incidentally, this drives mathematicians nuts.)
Yes, the burden of proof becomes the burden of proving the convergence to an exact correspondence, between the mental construct[infinite number of axioms] and reality
At the limit
M<--->R
M = R
[axiomatic method]--->[exact correspondence]<---[scientific method]
[ 24. November 2003, 15:14: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 24. November 2003 21:19
quote:
Are Gedankin and Rex saying that it is impossible for the perfect correspondence to exist as a converging limit?
Adding to what Rex said, to which I seem to agree:
Suppose that there are statements in language that exist as a converging limit. The question then becomes how many different kinds of such statements exist. It that an extremely "thin" set of statements--for example only the single statement of a physics TOE for example?
To say that there exist a possibility (not demonstrated) that there are a few statements in language that exist as a converging limit says nothing about the large body of language.
Russell, you never answered the question (at least in a satisfactory way) about the accuracy of Newtonian mechanics. The point is that it only converges in an extremely small set of conditions, and those conditions must become of smaller utility in order to make the convergence greater.
So how do you know that the chanin of complexity of TOE approximations is not an infinite sequence, taking an infinite amount (in limit) of language to obtain complete convergence (in limit). In other words, how do you know the opposite of your question is not the case?
[No more time--got to go]
[ 24. November 2003, 21:23: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 24. November 2003 22:26
quote:
Gedankin:
Russell, you never answered the question (at least in a satisfactory way) about the accuracy of Newtonian mechanics. The point is that it only converges in an extremely small set of conditions, and those conditions must become of smaller utility in order to make the convergence greater.
Newtonian mechanics is a starting point, a step towards exact correspondence.
[Newtonian Mechanics]-->[Relativity-Quantum Mechanics]-->[Next Step-Higher Energy]--->[Next]---> ... etc...etc...etc
[axiomatic method]--->[exact representation]<---[scientific method]
With the higher and higher energies, an asymptotic limit is approached
Newtonian mechanics is a low energy approximation of Einsteinian-Quantum Mechanics
Relativity and QM are lower energy approximations of a more unifying formalism.
The burden of proof, is to demonstrate that the more accurate representations are converging.
It doesn't matter if it is an infinite sequence, if it can be proven to be converging.
If the opposite is the case, then it must be demonstrated that the limit does not exist, to prove it is diverging.
IP: Logged
|
|
ordinary man
Member
Member # 188
|
posted 29. November 2003 08:48
Hello,
quote:
This is my interpretation of the ontological proofs of Anslem, Leibniz, and Goedel:
1.) A property is positive iff, its negation is not positive.
2.) A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property[self containment].
3.) A positive property is logically consistent.
4.) A property is God-like iff, it contains all positive properties. The term "God" is therefore defined as an unlimited being that is self contained, and contains, all positive properties.
5.)Being God-like is a positive property.
6.) Being a positive property is logically necessary.
7.) Necessary existence is a positive property.
8.) Therefore God exists.
I am new to this thread -- it is a long and fascinating one that will take me a while to get through -- but I have one question that perhaps someone can answer before I have to read Anslem, Leibniz, and Goedel in search of the answer:
quote:
4.) A property is God-like iff, it contains all positive properties. The term "God" is therefore defined as an unlimited being that is self contained, and contains, all positive properties.
Why does item 4 above hold? I don't understand why containing "all positive properties" makes a property God-like. Also, this sounds recursive as a property is defined in terms of a property. What is the definition of property itself in these proofs?
Just wondering.
Thanks,
ordinaryman
[ 29. November 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: ordinary man ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
