**From:** Daniel Radetsky (*daniel@radray.us*)

**Date:** Sat Jan 21 2006 - 13:54:42 MST

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "Re: Why invest in AGI?"**Previous message:**Richard Loosemore: "Re: Why invest in AGI?"**In reply to:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Next in thread:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:48:52 +1100 (EST)

Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

*> Let's just say that that I see no reason why reality
*

*> should be 100% consistent (in mathematical terms).
*

I assume that you are not denying the law of non-contradiction here, but

instead you mean to say that no mathematical system could describe reality and

be 100% consistent as you suggest later.

*> Suppose mathematics was not in fact the single unitary
*

*> thing that mathematicians think it is? Suppose that
*

*> there are in fact several different kinds of
*

*> mathematics needed to fully capture reality
*

*> ('dualities' is the technical term) and the different
*

*> kinds of math are not totally consistent with each
*

*> other?
*

Why should I suppose that?

*> It's also a dogma that mathematical truth is eternal
*

*> (time independent). I see no reason why this should
*

*> be so. Suppose that mathematical truth can in fact,
*

*> shift slightly with time?
*

As the other poster said, why should I suppose that either?

*> Combine the two ideas above and you have an idea for
*

*> 'mathematical causality'. Mathematical causality
*

*> could the process of the different kinds of
*

*> mathematics becoming more consistent with time.
*

Okay, but so far I have no reason to believe that either of the two ideas

necessary for me to believe in mathematical causality, so I don't see why I

should believe in mathematical causality at all.

You present a very strong challenge to the status quo of mathematics.

This is fine, but it means you should give very good arguments if you don't

want me to think you're just a crank.

Daniel

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "Re: Why invest in AGI?"**Previous message:**Richard Loosemore: "Re: Why invest in AGI?"**In reply to:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Next in thread:**Marc Geddes: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT
*