From: Marc Geddes (marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz)
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 02:18:21 MDT
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2004, at 3:11 AM, Marc Geddes wrote:
>
> >
> > Samantha, reasoning does not have to be
> hierarchical.
> > Popper's scientific method which was extended by
> > Bartley into Pan-Critical Rationalism is much
> broader
> > than just axiomatic reasoning.
> >
>
> No, it doesn't have to be hierarchical. However,
> you presented a
> hierarchical system replete with claims that latter
> parts were built on
> the foundation of former ones.
Actually I the arguments I layed down were *not* meant
to be hierarchical or axiomic. I made that clear at
the beginning:
"But the framework is in my opinion tightly
interconnected, forming a dazzling self-consistent
whole. I do not believe that parts of it can be
chopped and changed arbitrarily without serious
contradictions. For instance I do not think that
Transhumanism can be separated from Libertarianism or
visa versa. Both provide the natural logical support
for the other."
Although in 'Levels of Organization' I talked about
more complex ideas being built from simpler
foundations, I was not referring to my own framework.
My framework is dealing solely with the *bottom* layer
of reality - all the fundamental explanatory
principles are on the 'same' level (at the bottom of
the knowledge tree)
The arrangement 'Metaphysics' then 'Epistemology' then
'Ethics' then 'Politics' is just meant for ease of
reading. I could equally have put all the arguments
in reverse order. I could have started with
'Politics' then moved backwards.
So my framework is *not* hierarcial or axiomatic.
> >
> > Here is what I said:
> >
> > "But since the entire physical world is described
> by
> > mathematical equations, Turing's conception of a
> > 'Universal Turing Machine' (the general purpose
> > computer) suggests that all of reality is entirely
> > computational, in the sense that any finite part
> of
> > reality can be simulated by a general purpose
> > computer."
> >
> >
>
> The UTM theory is about the equivalence of
> computational devices.
> What is wrong in the above is taking the authority
> of Turing for your
> own notion of reality being entirely computational.
> Since, to the best
> of my knowledge, Turing never said such a thing,
> this is inappropriate
> and a rather imho a rather shabby argumentative
> ploy. It is worst
> than an argument from authority.
>
> - samantha
>
>
What I meant by the word 'suggests' was 'implies'. I
said that I thought that Turing's model IMPLIES that
reality is entirely computational.
Turing presented arguments for a complete mapping
between maths and computation. Any *finite* part of a
concept in maths can be translated into an algorithim
and visa versa.
Given that the language of science used to describe
the physical world is mathematical, and given the
Turing arguments (showing the mapping between maths
and algorithms), it follows that any of the equations
being used to describe a finite portion of physical
reality are back translatable into an algorithm.
=====
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"The Universe...or nothing!"
-H.G.Wells
Please visit my web-sites.
Science-Fiction and Fantasy: http://www.prometheuscrack.com
Science, A.I, Maths : http://www.riemannai.org
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT