Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA22707 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:06:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.222.132] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Tipping Point author in town Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:00:22 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F203IugpSsXYhGbZfaV0000fda9@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2002 23:00:23.0016 (UTC) FILETIME=[0EA0CE80:01C1AF62] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: <AaronLynch@aol.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Tipping Point author in town
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:44:56 EST
>
>In a message dated 2/6/2002 3:37:45 AM Central Standard Time, Joe Dees
><joedees@addall.com> writes:
>
> > > <AaronLynch@aol.com>Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:45:54 EST
> > > Re: Tipping Point author in town memetics@mmu.ac.ukReply-To:
>memetics@mmu.
> > ac.uk
> > >
> > >In a message dated 2/4/2002 10:02:47 PM Central Standard Time, Joe
>Dees
> > ><joedees@addall.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> >OK, for the moment, let's assume he will have no idea what the
>Godelian
> >
> > >> >threshold is- could you send me a nicely phrased, quickly
>asserted,
> > >> >question I could rehearse and learn?
> > >> >
> > >> >All the while realizing that I will be among a group of remarkable
> > >> >miscellany, as I'm sure you're aware.
> > >> >
> > >> Godel's Incompleteness Theorems I and II are the most important in
>20th
> > >> century mathematics. It is asserted that beyond a certain level of
> > >> complexity, that any axiomatic system contains undecideable
>statements;
> > the
> > >> reason for this is the emergence of self-reference in complex
>systems.
> > >Let's
> > >> postulate axiomatic system A, and state that all true statements,
>and
> > only
> > >> true statements, are inside A. Now let us construct statement B. B
>is
> > >> recursive and self-referential; that is, it refers to its own
>relation
> > with
> > >> axiomatic system A, and what it contends is that "B is not an axiom
>of
>A".
> >
> > >> What has happened here? If we include B in A, then B contains the
>false
> > >> statement that B is not an axiom of A, and thus does not contain
>only
> > true
> > >> statements, but if we exclude B from A, then A does not contain all
>true
> > >> statements, for it does not include the true statement that B is not
>an
> > >axiom
> > >> of A. To put it plainly, B either belongs BOTH inside and outside
>A,
>or
> > >> NEITHER inside nor outsi!
> > >> de A, and the dilemma is unresolveable within system A. B is
> > undecideable
> > >> with reference to A. The bottom drops out; mathematics is revealed
>as
>a
> > >Zen
> > >> koan.
> > >> But in reference to the universe A, WE are B, for we are within a
> > universe
> > >> that we nevertheless entertain a perspectival (point of) view upon;
>in
> > >other
> > >> words, Krishnamurti notwithstanding, as far as self-conscious
>awareness
> > >> within our environs goes, we are at once NOT and NOT-NOT the world
>("Neti,
> >
> > >> neti." (Not this, not that). Mind and world are not one, not two,
>not
> > >many,
> > >> but are components of a dynamic and recursive interrelational
>system.
> > >>
> > >> hope this helps.
> > >
> > >Hi Joe.
> > >
> > >It would help a lot more if Douglas Hofstadter were giving the talk!
> > >
> > >:-)
> > >Yee-HAAAA! But do you agree?
>
>Hi Joe.
>
>If I answer this question, then I will certainly have to discuss the decay
>of
>radioisotopes. That, of course, will bring on a disquisition into the
>ineffable Quantum of being. And from there, the bang-second could only be a
>few trillion electron volts away. Which would bring us back to the subject
>of
>spaces, wherein my physics memes were already showing -- according to If
>Price. By then, the universe and the mind would become one grand unified,
>self-referential force. But 10^^-32 seconds before that, the filters being
>devised by Scott Chase would become prevalent software contagions, and the
>idea of using them thought contagions, which might really give us something
>to talk about!
>
>--Aaron Lynch
>
>
Nothing wrong with those well acquainted with physics, as you and Phil
Jonkers are, discussing such things even though it won't take much to go
over my head (grumble, snort). My knee-jerk reaction comes from seeing
threads go south in forums where QM hybridizes with New Age* speculobabble.
"Quantum" is the all-purpose adjective, making almost every word it modifies
sound ever more appealing. If one wants to single-handedly obliterate
Western rationality and objectivism, just get the conversation going along
the lines of Heisenberg uncertainty and the edifices of all knowledge soon
crumble like crackers in the hands of the would be romantic po-mo,
deconstructionist.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 06 2002 - 23:14:56 GMT