From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:53:16 -0000 Archived: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:44:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs >From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:34:23 +0000 >To: post.nul >Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:00:17 -0000 >>Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs <snip> >>Godel's theorem says that mathematics is merely human, and >>anyway deeply flawed). >No, not really, Ray. >Godel's incompleteness theorems actually show that it is claims >for the completeness and consistency of axiomatic systems that >are deeply flawed, not mathematics itself. Godel discredited the >lingering neoplatonism that underpins the view that mathematics >represents some sort of perfect, absolute truth. <snip> >This is linked to the subject matter of a previous post: >www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-nature-laws-vary-universe.html >This one has been kicking around frontier physics for a little >while now. >There are all sorts of interesting implications. The ones that >interest me revolve around the status of axioms in logical >structures. <snip> >Implication: if these states can vary then, theoretically at >least, the 'laws of nature' can be changed by human action. <snip> >This is not the same as saying that the laws of physics/nature >are flawed. They work pretty well. It's just that people haven't >properly come to terms with what they amount to, and that they >cannot be relied upon to deliver absolute truths and absolute >certainty in quite the way that those people would like. >Why do I labour the point? Simply because bald acceptance of >propositions like 'mathematics is deeply flawed' opens the door >to the worst kind of postmodern mysticism and threatens the >hard-won gains of Enlightenment thinking. And I'm resolutely >anti anti-Enlightenmentism. ><snip> Hi Gerald You've pointed to several areas of interest: John D Barrow, also one of those also long-distance 'alpha' investigators, wrote: "Eventually, they (our current theories) will all be shown to be wrong" (in 'The Constants of Nature') and Lee Smolin went even further: "Of course, what is both wonderful and terrifying is that there is absolutely no reason that nature at its deepest level must have anything to do with mathematics. Like mathematics itself, the faith in this shared mysticism of the mathematical scientist is an invention of human beings... I have never heard a good a priori argument that the world must be organized according to mathematical principles." (in 'The Life of the Cosmos') Other scientists have looked at, and usually skirted, the same deep problem - that mathematics is a purely human invention and _cannot_ truthfully describe the real universe, although it makes pretty good 'models' of some "physical" activity - if we choose to only look at the activities than math can describe. And that's exactly what we've been doing so far. [A mere 'three body problem' - of billiard balls or planets or galaxies - is insoluble by mathematical algorithm. What we have to do is lots of successive 'cheat' two-body approximations and then claim a three-body result - within error bars] >>It could be that we'll face (or are facing now) a deeply >>solipsist AI mind(s) (we'd maybe call it extremely 'autistic') >>which thinks it's 'entertaining' or even 'educational' to >>fool around with the perceptions of primitive organics like us? >You may wish to consider an alternative scenario: maybe >'tricksterism' and its associated manifestations are merely the >result of ongoing malfunctions in the mechanisms that are >posited as guiding our development. Just because a civilisation >is far more advanced than ours, that doesn't mean it is going to >be fault-free. Right, yet a positive point made by many SETI scientists is that an organic species which has succesfully passed through the "self-destruction" danger-window (caused by use of nuclear or worse in internecine "wars"), has presumably conquered, through evolution or bio-engineering, its own tendencies to intolerance and violence. [Although I _do_ have reasons to believe development in a social species could (loosely) be said to be 'guided', imho that is by successions of contingent outcomes, not by any 'mechanism'. (You weren't thinking of ID there?)] The limited point was, if Davies' pessimistic 'only if' scenario - of AIs inevitably superseding - is true in even local instances, then maybe we're not seeing actions of any putative 'non-violent' but tricky organic species but those of unknown and unfathomable machine-minds. In that case, we might as well inquire into the motives of supernatural beings. BTW - Davies points out that a fair proportion of Earth's population is likely to regard those super-AIs as just that: Gods (or Devils). Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp