Gödel's incompleteness theorems does [sic] not automatically apply to physics. — Lionino
There is no ample scope for "mysteries and miracles" here beyond someone's uneducated sophistry. — Lionino
The above is my launch into the spine of my OP. — ucarr
With his paper, "The Hard Problem," David Chalmers shows in stark fashion what science, so far, cannot do: it cannot objectify the personal point of view of an enduring, individual self with personal history attached. It can technologize the self via computation, but the result isn't an authentic self. Instead, it's just a simulation of the self without an autonomous self-awareness. This technical self is just a machine awaiting additional source code from humans. — ucarr
If there's a grain of truth in what I've written above, then Tarskian is correct in the characterization of the Incompleteness Theorem being the cause of a crisis in science and math. Jeffrey Kaplan compounds the reality of this crisis with his exegesis of Russell's Paradox. — ucarr
"If we knew everything about the positions of every particle in the universe, we would have a complete physics database and could predict every physical event." -- Lee Smolin — ucarr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past could be present before its eyes.
Cantor diagonalization. In 2008, David Wolpert used Cantor diagonalization to challenge the idea of Laplace's demon. He did this by assuming that the demon is a computational device and showed that no two such devices can completely predict each other.[10][11] Wolpert's paper was cited in 2014 in a paper of Josef Rukavicka, where a significantly simpler argument is presented that disproves Laplace's demon using Turing machines, under the assumption of free will.[12]
https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0305282
Instances of diagonal theorems
The quartet of Incompleteness Theory includes: Bertrand Russell, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, and Kurt Gödel. Russell and Gödel have something to say about the limits of axiomatic systems; Schrödinger and Heisenberg have something to say about the limits of quantized physical interactions. — ucarr
Are you bear-hugging the hard determinism of the permutations (Three-Card Molly gone cosmic) of a complete physics database? — ucarr
And you start by making an obvious error. All questions are "what?" questions.
How does ice melt? = What are the processes/mechanisms that cause ice to melt? — I like sushi
I think Husserl started to address this by pointing out thatpsychology doesscientific philosophy and methodology do not deal with subjectivity - — I like sushi
Science is defined by hard and fast rules/laws that are accurate enough to surpass mere blind opinion or singular subjective perspectives. — I like sushi
you are confusing yourself by interchanging...How and What without appreciating that they are...What questions. — I like sushi
Maybe you wish to ask 'What would we mean by saying Consciousnessing?' rather than relying on the term "thinking"? — I like sushi
As of yet, I am still unsure what you are saying and starting to think that you do not really have a clear idea of what you mean due to misapplication of terms and heuristic bias. — I like sushi
This demon cannot exist because of Cantor's generalized theorem (or "Cantor's diagonalization"). — Tarskian
...the following theorems are all a consequence of Cantor's generalized theorem: — Tarskian
Instances of diagonal theorems:
Russell’s Paradox
Grelling’s Paradox
Richard’s Paradox
Liar Paradox
Turing’s Halting Problem
Diagonalization Lemma
Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem
Gödel-Rosser’s Incompleteness Theorem
Tarski’s Undefinability of the truth
Parikh Sentences
Löb’s Paradox
The Recursion Theorem
Rice’s Theorem
Von Neumann’s Self-reproducing Machines — Tarskian
invisible beauty doesn't interact with anything, so the architecture gets entirely determined by what's practical, or sustainable. — jkop
A building is not a machine to live in, nor a humanistic work of art, but the interplay of both. — jkop
I take it you are referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is not about "limits of quantised physical interactions". — Lionino
There is no ample scope for "mysteries and miracles" here beyond someone's uneducated sophistry. — Lionino
Are you bear-hugging the hard determinism of the permutations (Three-Card Molly gone cosmic) of a complete physics database? — ucarr
that implies everything in existence can be known scientifically — ucarr
It doesn't. There are different kinds of knowledge other than scientific. — Lionino
So, uncountable sets prevent us from totting up the universe as a whole? — ucarr
I don't understand how one can disprove Laplace's Demon using Cantor's theorem. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK
Cantor diagonalization. In 2008, David Wolpert used Cantor diagonalization to challenge the idea of Laplace's demon ... Wolpert's paper was cited in 2014 in a paper of Josef Rukavicka, where a significantly simpler argument is presented that disproves Laplace's demon using Turing machines, under the assumption of free will.[12]
The essentially difference between the sciences and the humanities is cross-culturalism. Science, as a method, is not culture bound (in the general sense). It's motivation is simplicity of theory, not outcomes.
Everything in the humanities is culture-bound (in the general sense) and outcomes are the policy-driving forces. These aren't problems, though. — AmadeusD
We're on the same page regarding the interrelationship of: science, art, ecology. Now, in this conversation, I want to detail in some stuff that talks in a rational and general manner about what the differences are between the two titans: science/art, and how those modal differences are mediated by the unifying synchro-mesh of ecology.
a day ago — ucarr
you must explain how a science fact is not science. — ucarr
the process of — ucarr
No. THe process of electrolysis is a fact about science. The measurements are 'science facts'. The method and the results are not the same kind of fact. I do not understand how you're confusing the two, and so perhaps my responses are inapt.That's a science fact — ucarr
How is it not the case that your argument above is not pettifogging en route to word muddle? — ucarr
Here I think you insert an artificial partition; the Tony Awards would be meaningless without the dramatic performances that precede it. — ucarr
Here you distill the war between science and art: successful navigation of right and wrong facts and right and wrong logic leads to the science and technology that produces nuclear bombs. — ucarr
Can we see, herein, that right and wrong is concerned with what things are, whereas good and bad is concerned with the moral meaning of how things are experienced? — ucarr
what the differences are between the two titans: science/art, and how those modal differences are mediated by the unifying synchro-mesh of ecology. — ucarr
I'm not sure what this is meant to mean, but there is precisely zero muddle or problems witht eh words in my account. They are straight-forward, easy to understand and delineate, and adequately refer to the two distinct things I am referring to. — AmadeusD
what the differences are between the two titans: science/art, and how those modal differences are mediated by the unifying synchro-mesh of ecology.
I am prone to florid sentences myself sometimes but this is just too much for me to stomach anymore. — I like sushi
It is your thread so you should provide clarity of what you are asking instead of throwing out random questions and having others guess what you are talking about. — I like sushi
If you are just riffing, fair enough. If you have something explicit to say I have not seen it yet. — I like sushi
The sciences are concerned with “what,” whereas the humanities are concerned with “how.”
Write an elaboration of what you think this means.
I’ll begin with my own elaboration:
What = existence; How = journey — ucarr
I have a feeling you are confusing yourself by interchanging Why, How and What without appreciating that they are ALL What questions. — I like sushi
you are confusing yourself by interchanging...How and What without appreciating that they are...What questions. — I like sushi
...Why, How and What... are ALL What questions — I like sushi
My claim, faulty though it be, characterizes the general difference as different modalities of method of discovery: the what modality for science; the how modality for art.
The what modality is a narration of things as things.
The how modality is a narration of things as experiences. — ucarr
...Why, How and What... are ALL What questions — I like sushi
They [sic] is no direct question in the OP (very nebulous). — I like sushi
The essentially difference between the sciences and the humanities is cross-culturalism. Science, as a method, is not culture bound (in the general sense). It's motivation is simplicity of theory, not outcomes.
Everything in the humanities is culture-bound (in the general sense) and outcomes are the policy-driving forces. These aren't problems, though. — AmadeusD
This is impressive thinking. :up: — Athena
We're on the same page regarding the interrelationship of: science, art, ecology. Now, in this conversation, I want to detail in some stuff that talks in a rational and general manner about what the differences are between the two titans: science/art, and how those modal differences are mediated by the unifying synchro-mesh of ecology.
a day ago — ucarr
Can you turn that into a four-dimensional pentahedron? — Athena
The terrain of my claim is the grayscale that lies between two polarities, say, black and white. "What" and "How" are non-identical exchangeables, just as, by your own argument, "science" and "art" are non-identical exchangeables. — ucarr
I am prone to florid sentences myself sometimes but this is just too much for me to stomach anymore.
— I like sushi
What would philosophy be without dubious sentences? — jkop
A more charitable interpretation of that sentence is that it is based on the dubious assumption that art and science are opposite modes of inquiry, and somehow ecology meshes them together. — jkop
But the assumption is proven wrong by the fact that both in the sciences and in the arts we use pretty much the same modes of inquiry, e.g. abductive. — jkop
Discovery of "what" is rooted in the nominative predication of the fact of existing things.
This nominative predication of the fact of existing things establishes "what is."
Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the nominative predication of the fact of existing things.
This adverbial modification of the nominative predication of the fact of existing things narrates "what it's like" to experience "what is."
This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery.
David Chalmers has enlightened us with just how profound is the difference between "what" and "how" with his seminal paper, "The Hard Problem." It delineates what is perhaps the greatest limitation of abductive reasoning from "what." — ucarr
Have you ever taken a test that asks you an essay question? Essay questions are not yes/no questions, nor are they multiple choice questions where you check the correct box. Essay questions ask the person to write an essay pertinent to the issue raised by the question. This is the hardest type of question because you're on your own judgment about what is the best answer. So, yes, there is no simple, bracketed answer indicated by the question, but that's because it wants you to be expansive in the expression of your pertinent thoughts. — ucarr
Is there a bridge linking "what" with "how" in the context I've elaborated here? — ucarr
Thank-you for your time and energy because your involvement, something requiring my defense, has empowered me to better understand what I'm trying to communicate within this conversation. — ucarr
There should be no insoluble mysteries such as: what lies beyond a black hole's event horizon. This must follow if it's true that, as you say: There is no ample scope for "mysteries and miracles" here beyond someone's uneducated sophistry. — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.