Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA24151 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:42:48 GMT Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:37:06 -0800 Message-Id: <200202070837.g178b6U03714@mail14.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [65.80.161.203] From: "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Tipping Point author in town Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> <AaronLynch@aol.com>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:44:56 EST
> Re: Tipping Point author in town memetics@mmu.ac.ukReply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>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
>
Now that's not only diplomatically noncommital, it's funny! But I was discussing the structure and function of subjectivity, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for its genesis and development, not quantum whatever. That's OK, though...
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>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
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
===============================================================
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 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 09:59:17 GMT