**From:** Marc Geddes (*marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz*)

**Date:** Tue Aug 17 2004 - 01:40:57 MDT

**Next message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Previous message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Final draft of my philosophical platform now on line"**In reply to:**Simon Gordon: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Next in thread:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Reply:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- Simon Gordon <sim_dizzy@yahoo.com> wrote:

*>
*

*> However human intellect is sufficiently complex as
*

*> to
*

*> have the capability of understanding and abstractly
*

*> manipulating things which are not even part of this
*

*> universe and therefore not necessarily reducible to
*

*> math. Examples of this are: parallel universes,
*

*> qualia, software programs, memetics, possible
*

*> sociopolitical orders, kilometers, set theory,
*

*> infinity, fairytales, etc -the list is pretty much
*

*> endless. Some of these are obviously math-based,
*

*> some
*

*> not so; but none of them are actually part of the
*

*> physical hardware of this universe. Humans are not
*

*> number crunchers; we dont understand all these
*

*> abstractions via reduction to numerals and
*

*> equations,
*

*> we understand them via neighbouring concepts,
*

*> associations, metaphors and analogues.
*

*>
*

*> Personally I believe that this kind of higher level
*

*> reasoning doesnt correlate at all well to the
*

*> mathematical underpinnings of our chemical/physical
*

*> wetware and it might well be proven that some
*

*> "neural
*

*> knots" might be just implicitly too complex to
*

*> untangle. In those cases language might have a
*

*> better
*

*> shot at actually translating what cannot be
*

*> expressed
*

*> in pure math. I can already think of several
*

*> examples
*

*> of concepts which havent got a hope in hell of being
*

*> written down in mathematical notation, yet can be
*

*> expressed with a single word...
*

*>
*

*> If someonone wants to tell me to shutup for 2
*

*> months,
*

*> i wont be offended. :-)
*

*>
*

*> Simon Gordon.
*

*>
*

*>
*

Mathematical reasoning doesn't have to be

reductionist. As I said in the paragraph I wrote

entitled 'Levels of Organization' in my platform,

simple new concepts can emerge from complex

arrangements of concepts from a lower-level. The

higher-level concepts won't be able to be *explained*

in terms of the concepts on the lower level (although

the higher level concepts could still be *described*

in terms of the lower level concepts). This does not

make the higher level concepts any less mathematical.

I don't see that an infinity of axioms (reality is

uncountable) is a problem. We are not limited to

axiomatic reasoning. Although higher level

mathematical axioms would not be derivable from lower

level mathetical axioms, we can still reason about and

*prove* the higher level axioms using probabilistic

reasoning.

=====

"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

**Next message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Previous message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Final draft of my philosophical platform now on line"**In reply to:**Simon Gordon: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Next in thread:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Reply:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: All is information (was: All is number)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT
*