Ted Hoffman

I havent read Shadows of the mind so that obviously cripples my ability to address Penrose's arguments adequately. But from luvluv's link:

Penrose's argument One is unclear because we do not know exactly what he means by "computationally". Can the following section enlighten us?:
What does he mean by "currently conceived"? Conceived by who?
I have read other articles on Penrose's position and I have since learnt that he perceives a computer as a Turing machice (a non-interactive computer program).

The first mistake is to think the ability of a computer to "think" is based on bits (binary digits). Its not about bits at all. Its about the programming languages, which are used to give commands. The stronger the programming language, the more a commands can be given and the more a program can do. The richer the syntax and the more the commands, the more a computer can do - including developing a theorem about themselves.

Years ago, I learnt how to use PROLOG(Programming in Logic) - to create an intelligent program that could make decisions from what it is fed. The whole thing about AI and Expert Systems is about having a language that can create, establish and use a strong inference engine from which it can make decisions and think. I have also designed a program that could be used to diagnose 11 psychiatric disorders when I was studying expert systems. I hope to study neural networks later in the year.

So first, computer programs are much more interactive today and programmers are overcoming all the limitations of natural language (fuzziness etc) and are developing stronger AI languages.

About argument two, read This paper for a better understanding of Godels Theorem and the mistake Penrose is making. And he is not the first one to make it: its just that he is a brilliant physicist.

I dont see how his fallacious comparison of the human mind and the computer is tantamount to a monistic view. The mind is a property of the brain and its true the brain and a computer processor are subject to the same laws of physics. But that does not mean they work in exactly the same way. Or that they therefore share the same limitations. Godel's theory was formulated over 60 years ago and a lot has changed since then.

The Admiral

By coincidence I have just started to re-read Godel, Escher and Bach. My note on the flyleaf indicates that I bought it in Honolulu in 1983. I know that I have read it cover to cover but reading and understanding are two different things. But it's a great read whether or not you understand it.

The Admiral

Shake

It also doesn't hurt if you've had some training/schooling in formal systems and logic. I majored in mathematics in college and got a minor in the Philosophy of Science and Logic, so I was exposed to some of these ideas multiple times.

The Admiral

Shake

That sure would help. Unfortunately my schooling ended with 9th grade so I'm a bit short on all that good stuff.

The Admiral

Peter Soderqvist

What I have learned from his theorem is that; all units in a system is not computable, some part of it is taken for granted, because everything in a system cannot be defined inside it, this is something a computer cannot propose, therefore; The human mind is something more than a Turing machine, and this something more is non-computational insights! I will give you an example: If our observations, and measurements are consistent, it is reasonable to assume that we are living in a real world, but it takes something like Mr. Sloan in the Matrix movie to get outside the computer program, to know that the world is not real! My point here is not to put the objective reality in doubt, but to point out that, a system is at best; a self-referential circuit, like the people in the matrix world, they referred to each other in a kind of circular reasoning, and so gave the world of Matrix its consistence proof, in short; we need to compare with something outside the system, or the program, in order to know if it is truth, or not! :banghead:

Ted Hoffman

You have stated the very reason behind Christopher Michael Langans CTMU. which explains how the universe is a Self-Configuring-Self-Processing-Language reality under the guidance of the Telic Principle (a form of Anthropic Principle). It makes a lot of sense especially when one factors in John Wheelers universe as a self-excited circuit.

Reality is defined using unreality (the UBT according to CML). Thats whats outside the "matrix".

The tautological and reflexive nature of reality makes a lot of sense IMO especially the M=R concept.

Peter Soderqvist

TO INTENSITY

Soderqvist1: I am not familiar with C T M U, but I am assuming that you mean the universe is a big Algorithm, or a self-excited circuit, and the observers are something else!

Soderqvist1: Is everything decidable, or computable?
Neo or Mr. Sloan had a hunch, or an intuition that something was wrong with his world, but he couldn't put his finger on it, but some day when he got out of the program he saw that, it was not the reality he was in, it was only the Matrix program. So Matrix is defined as unreality, and the world outside that is the reality, but how do we know that, Mr. Sloan is not in a second Matrix program, which is similar, or different, and a third Matrix program ad infinitum? My point here is; a consistency proof cannot be formalized in a system, or in other words, a consistency proof is not part of that system, this is the whole point with Godel's incompleteness theorem!

Soderqvist1: what is M=R concept?

Ted Hoffman

Peter S.,
No, observers are part of the "world" the observer occupies a part of the world - which is defined as a self-contained branch of the universal wavefunction - one that has decohered from the rest (according to Many Worlds Interpretation of QM).

Reality (according to CTMU - which conflates reality and the universe) is infocognitive but CTMU departs sharply from Descarte's mind-body dualism and Berkeley's and Hume's positions on mind, reality and perception.

John Wheeler portrayed this self-conscious aspect of reality with an upper-case U with the tip of one end having the eye [sensory-cognitive aspect of reality] and the other tip representing the informational aspect of reality. By virtue of these complementary aspects, the universe is conscious hence incocognitive.

See, there is you and me (cognitive agents) and there are the mountains, gravity and the sky (informational aspects of reality) which are both part of reality. So reality describes itself in a recursive, self-referencing manner (is that a tautology? It should be).

The observer occupies no special place in physics and is subject to the same laws of physics as a rock.

Giving the observer an important (and I daresay, "lofty" or even "godly") place in the universe has been one of the points on which the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM fails because there is the belief that the observer has an influence on the collapse of the wavefunction: he does not.

A huge Algorithm? (or do you mean "run by a big algorithm"?)
Thats a tough one. I guess that is one of the questions TOE will be answering.

I wouldnt say the universe is "algorithmic" because of quantum indeterminacy and other indeterminate aspects of reality - unless there is an algorithm that actually ensures outcomes are non-deterministic.

When one study's chaotic systems like the weather systems and phenomena like the butterfly effect, that also dims the algorithm idea.

But I believe (this is my opinion as a know-nothing layman) the universe is self-processing, autologous (self-describing), and is self-contained (hology). Its cybernetic nature, IMHO, does not entail that there is an algorithm in place: all that is needed is syntax. And the syntax is there the answers lie in information theory.

That tower-of-turtles itself is an indication that that is a wrong model.
But the universe is also described as a self-resolving paradox.

I think thats similar to the problem of induction in science. The self-referencing nature of empiricism - hence the need for a metatheory - one that explains the laws of science.

The Universe is a self-configuring and self-processing cybernetic system.

Mind equals Reality.
The theoretical description of reality by human beings contained in reality is tantamount to the reality describing itself.

So, no dichotomy hence M=R.

luvluv

Intensity:

Is CTMU related at all to ID? Is it theistic?

Peter Soderqvist

TO INTENSITY

Soderqvist1: I assume that, you mean that, the observer is analogous with consciousness, but that is not the Copenhagen interpretation! It is John von Neumann, Eugene Wigner 's line of interpretation! It can be found here http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Summ...oswami9901.htm

Copenhagen interpretation is that the wave function collapses into one factual electron, and dissolves into many "ghost electrons" when we don't look at them through a measuring apparatus. But these "ghost electrons" branches off into other worlds, according to Everett's many worlds interpretation, neither interpretation is wrong, they are only different metaphysical assumptions, which is not part of science, because neither of them are testable nor falsifiable, but the mathematical formalism which calculates the probability distribution of quantum objects are science which is agreed upon by all quantum physicists! We know through the double slit experiment, and Wheeler's delayed-chose experiment through its interference pattern, that the unmeasured electron exists as wave of possibility, but we don't know what has happen to the "ghosts electrons" when we measure the electron, either it is a collapse of a wave function, or they branches off into many worlds!

I belong to the metaphysical assumption that consciousness collapses the wave function, it is not yet testable, and for the same reason it is not science, but the hypothesis is consistent with experimental findings, like all other interpretations are! The local hidden variable is disproved by John Bell's EPR experiments in the 60s, and by Aspect's experiment in the 80s, but hidden non-local variables are not disproved!

Soderqvist1: This is only a metaphor, which should not be taken too far! The point is that all propositions cannot be proven in a system, when Neo was in the Matrix world it was not possible to prove that that world is not real, the evidence was outside that system, now Neo knows that the real world is out side the Matrix, but if the world is real, that potential completeness evidence is even outside that system too, since for every evidence which is added to some system, this evidence end up incomplete in the system too, it is like a catch 22. Let's take some metaphor example from our real world!

Both you, and I know that there is a huge quantity of propositions in the world! My point is that; we can see the quantity, but the quantity cannot be formalized in the same system! For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are 10 propositions! Will my own proposition here, be one of these propositions, or is my own proposition number 11? If you say that: yes your own proposition is included, and thus there are 11 propositions in the world! Is it? Isn't your own proposition to me here the number 12? The numbers of observed propositions are not computable, and are thus undecidable in the system! Metaphorically, the estimation about how many propositions there are in this system is a-non-computational-mathematical-insight!

Logical syllogism is also incomplete, since there are propositions, which are undecidable! This proposition is decidable; all humans are mortals, all philosophers are humans, therefore all philosophers are mortals!

This is an undecidable proposition; all Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan, therefore I am a liar! I have tell you the truth that; I am a Cretan, thus I doesn't belong to the set of liars, at least one Cretan isn't a liar, namely me! If Cretans are liars or not is thus an undecidable proposition!

Do you get the feeling about what gödel 's theorem means with; " a consistency proof cannot be formalized in a system?