Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA22398 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:50:40 GMT From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:44:56 EST Subject: Re: Tipping Point author in town To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
In a message dated 2/6/2002 3:37:45 AM Central Standard Time, Joe Dees
> > <AaronLynch@aol.com>Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:45:54 EST
> > Re: Tipping Point author in town email@example.comReply-To:
> >In a message dated 2/4/2002 10:02:47 PM Central Standard Time, Joe Dees
> ><firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> >OK, for the moment, let's assume he will have no idea what the
> >> >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
> >> century mathematics. It is asserted that beyond a certain level of
> >> complexity, that any axiomatic system contains undecideable statements;
> >> reason for this is the emergence of self-reference in complex systems.
> >> postulate axiomatic system A, and state that all true statements, and
> >> 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
> >> axiomatic system A, and what it contends is that "B is not an axiom of
> >> What has happened here? If we include B in A, then B contains the
> >> statement that B is not an axiom of A, and thus does not contain only
> >> statements, but if we exclude B from A, then A does not contain all
> >> statements, for it does not include the true statement that B is not an
> >> of A. To put it plainly, B either belongs BOTH inside and outside A,
> >> NEITHER inside nor outsi!
> >> de A, and the dilemma is unresolveable within system A. B is
> >> with reference to A. The bottom drops out; mathematics is revealed as
> >> koan.
> >> But in reference to the universe A, WE are B, for we are within a
> >> that we nevertheless entertain a perspectival (point of) view upon; in
> >> words, Krishnamurti notwithstanding, as far as self-conscious awareness
> >> within our environs goes, we are at once NOT and NOT-NOT the world
> >> neti." (Not this, not that). Mind and world are not one, not two, not
> >> 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?
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!
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 06 2002 - 19:59:36 GMT