Ghost Blog

You know my email if you want to talk. Or click on my namelink.

Create a temp email account, if you don't want me to know your real email.

LL&P

Always remember.
Whenever you access the Net, I'll be there, by your side.
- Motoko Kusanagi GiTS 2 - Innocence
 

So, if she's declining the soulstone and she ain't anything like the original Major Kusanagi, where does her soul/consciousness/memory-personality data lie now?

Yes, Shammy, I understand WoW very well; but, like alcohol, I got out before the life/career-destruction I saw happening to others because of it occurred to me.
 

She wasn't playing WoW Scorpius. Didn't you see the wink?

She was actually engaged in a territorial fight on her Habibi's blog.

Another blogger was complaining about her attitude, and wanted to have her banned.

She is trying to blame Hasan's treason on US meddling in muslim countries. She is saying he was driven insane by WEC-driven meddling and proselyting.

Bullshytt

My theory is he was driven insane by religious extremism that turned a US-born and raised person down the path of treason. It seems at the moment, that he waged war on his natural-born country, when he wasn't excused from serving in a non-combatant role in Afghanistan. It's only a theory - The authorities will figure it out.

Note: he was a volunteer who had sworn to serve his birth-country honorably.

Remember he was never asked to fight anywhere. He was an Army psychiatrist, not a grunt. He would almost certainly have been stationed at a US military base. His job in Afghanistan would have been exactly the same as his job in America.

Above all, his role in Afghanistan would not have required active armed combat against co-religionists.

I am in awe at the courage of Sgt Kimberly Munley, the young woman who took the killer down. At the risk of her own life.

And I am always grateful for the science and courage-driven power that protects the civilizations of the West from the envy and hatred of its enemies. Even if I sometimes disagree about policy of the politicians. Often, actually.

FWIW, Scorpius. Reading some of her comments on the other blog made me very depressed. Try it sometime. Make sure you bring a barf bag. Large.

BTW did you know habbibi means darling or dear? ROFLMAO.

The most-rational person I saw over there was Razib. He seems to think she's a nutjob. I didn't know that.

And so we get to the end.

Whatever case I was ever trying to make, I finished my final development of it on the previous thread. Thanks Mitch.

I truly don't think there is a lot more for me to say here.

Reading Matoko's habbibi's blog has taught me, for all time, why there is no point my continuing the discussion in the current circumstances. The loss of illusion is a liberating experience. There was so much I didn't understand. I do now.

Matoko. My email is now the only way you can reliably contact me. The link will remain for the foreseeable future - Mostly in case I want to comment on other blogs. I am not asking you to email me. But if you want to talk about anything you can.

I'll see you all, from time to time, but probably won't comment. Certainly nowhere near as much in the future. Right now the pointlessness of it would overwhelm me.

See ya Scorp.

I am going now.
Motoko Kusanagi - GitS 2 Innocence.
 

Yeah, Keid, It looks like it is time to wrap it up and leave. I stayed because I both wanted to save her from her present course (note: not from her religion specifically, just how she was approaching it) and I'm a sadist.

It's clear to me (that Razib and other posters at TalkIslam have essentially labeled her a nut) that Matoko is irredeemable; or at least she can only be redeemed if she really chooses it.

Quite simply: she shows all the signs of becoming an Islamist extremist (excessive Xenophobic bigotry, absolute love of Islam, undying and unthinking loyalty to it) which is sad because she used to be a rational-minded person.

It is that time in a friendship (even a online one) where you realize that it is time to just leave your friend before absolutely everything bottoms out.

Her mind is gone and her soul (if there is such a thing) is enslaved. She is no longer the friend I once knew. That Kate is dead, murdered by Shams.

Have a good one Keid.
 

Keid,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ref=pe_20890_13690660_pe_t4/?ASIN=B002NUULNG

Ghost in the Shell: 2 in Blu-ray
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Scorpius,
In my country:

There is "GitS 2.0" which is a remake of the original GitS for HD.
http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/809768

To be released Dec 2

And there is "GitS 2 Innocence"
http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/809029

Released last week.

I watched Innocence last night. Bluray. Full HD Widescreen. Beautiful film.

The similarity in the titles is very confusing.
 

Note:
You can't play Aussie BluRays in USA or vice-versa because of regional coding.

Pain in the ass.
 

Hey I just had a final thought. When we communicate with Flesh-Matoko (Shammy) we're communicating with the shell now. The "ghost" we used to love and enjoy has departed for areas unknown and left behind the shell that, because the ghost was in it for so long and left impressions on the neurons, can simulate the ghost but is not the ghost.

Like I said, Matoko is dead, the ghost is departed. Mourn for the our loss of the ghost.
 

Anybody home?
 

Hello ... just wanted to tell about the new link directory which was released just over a week ago.

Länkkatalog

have a nice weekend
/ / Rickard

** Please feel free to link to me **
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I just watched GitS.SAC again. It still knocks me out. My favorite SciFi ever. I will always be grateful that you showed me this.

Inner Universe (the full song) is performed by Russian-born Origa (real name Olga Vitalevna Yakovleva). The full version is only played once in the series, during the final episode.

Best version of lyrics, which are in Russian, English and Latin:
http://www.animelyrics.com/
anime/ghostshell/inneruniverse.htm
 

And btw, if you'd like to hear Motoko Kusanagi singing, here is You're Not Here, by Mary Elizabeth McGlynn.

She is the actress with the sexy voice who does the English voice dub for Motoko Kusanagi in GitS.

HOW FREAKIN COOL IS THAT?
 

There's something else I've been wanting to tell you for a few weeks. This might be a good time, assuming you are still monitoring comments here.

You will recall no doubt that we had discussions in the past about Godel incompleteness. I mentioned to you at the time that I thought that one way out of the problem might be that the ultimate laws of physics might be expressed in a mathematics simpler than arithmetic, since that would circumvent Godel's theorem.

Godel's second theorem proves there are undecidable propositions in any system that is powerful enough to include Peano arithmetic.

Well, I recently read a fascinating paper by Frank Tipler, that argues that one alternative might be to frame the laws of physics in terms of Presburger arithmetic.

You will recall that Presburger arithmetic only includes addition and subtraction - Multiplication and division being achieved by the repeated use of addition and subtraction.

Presburger arithmetic is Godel complete.

Now computational physics already mostly uses Presburger arithmetic. And it becomes much more plausible generally, if we start to take quantum gravity and the holographic principle/Bekenstein entropy bound seriously, because that suggests that QFT can be derived from an equivalent theory in a two plus one dimensional spacetime with a finite number of quantized-area states.

This question is not academic. There has been recent claims that the holographic principle has been empirically detected.

If you want to read Tipler's paper you can get it here:

ArXiv

Page 14 contains the relevant comments about Presburger arithmetic.

The entire paper is typical Tipler - I'm guessing you might enjoy section II. PHYSICAL REALITY AS PURE NUMBER: THE PLATONIC-PYTHAGOREAN IDEAL - And then section III. THE EMPIRICIST DISSENT.

Broadly pages 5 to 23.

OTOH you might even like the whole paper.
 

That paragraph should read:

"Godel's first incompleteness theorem proves there are undecidable propositions in any system that is powerful enough to include Peano arithmetic"
 

Every Lagrangian in particle physics has multiplication in it.
 

True, but the algorithms that handle multiplication in computational physics do floating point binary arithmetic.

There are no multipliers in computation. Only addition and complementary addition (subtraction). So how is it done?

You do it with repeated binary addition and shift registers.

A shift to the left is just a multiplication by two. In Presburger you emulate it by adding a number to itself.

The exponent part of floating point "multiplication" is just addition of course.

So computers can't multiply. They add and subtract and shift.
 

See, what I'm getting at here is something a little bit paradoxical.

In the past I suggested that the ultimate ground state of reality - at the sub-Planckian level - might be an array of cellular automata.

I suggested that for a number of reasons:

First because of Godels incompleteness, and the suspicion that we would need something simpler than arithmetic, to model the ultimate theory of everything.

Second because of the intuition that information had to be the "ground state reality".

This seems plausible to me for a number of reason:
-it is the whole direction of modern physics, Quantum Information Theory.
-it is compelling to anyone who has ever played a computer video game,
-it is consistent with the sense that consciousness is the deepest thing we *know*,
..... and what is conscousness built from, if not *information*?

OK?

But now I'm modifying this argument a bit.

The central insight is the holographic principle.

This makes it seem likely that our universe is actually a holographic virtual reality.

The REAL OBJECTIVE LEVEL is the 2 dimensional hologram that generates it.

If that hologram level consists of quantised-area "cells", as the holographic principle suggests,

then plausibly....

That is where to hide the cellular automata that do the actual computation that generates our virtual reality.

So then, there are two things that conceal the computation-level "ground state of reality" from us.

First the fact that the Planckian scale is really, really small.

Secondly the fact that it is hidden (with respect to us) in the reciprocal Fourier Transform space,
rather than in our "apparently real but actually virtual" 3D holographic space that we only appear to flourish in.



Strictly speaking then, the only place that the virtual reality of the apparent world actually exists,
is in the world-model that we construct in our brains as we build our sense of "self-in the world".

Thus both the world-model and our self-model exist only in our brains.
And all forms of awareness are really self-awareness.

Our brains are mini virtual-machines that the holographic world-computer emulates, as it computes its future states.
They evolve spontaneously according the the laws of Holographic Gameworld.
 

I think maybe "ground state of reality" should really be written as "ground of reality".
 

(assuming I buy the holo-space hypothesis)
Question: Presburger arithmetic is decidable, but not finitely aziomatizable- does this have implications for the number of cellular automata in the holo-space? or does the operation of counting discrete objects not hold there?
 

Hi Dio, I think Presburger is finitely axiomatizable. Tipler says even Peano needs only five axioms.

But most realizations of holography come up with a similar number of quantized-area states related to the maximum radius of the universe.

I can't understate how completely my "model" is pure wild-assed speculation with cubic parsecs of arm-waving and generous helpings of mythical poetry recited in Iambic pentameters.

The surgeon general advises that believing my fantasies may be injurious to your mental health. That's why I'd call it, a dream of a final theory. It should probably be set to music and sung as oratorio - Like Handel's Messiah.

It's an act of secular spirituality.
 

No worries, Keid: I've only recently moderated my position that platonism (of any kind) is the syphilis of the sciences. It's really Stephenson's 'Anathem' which made such an impact that I entertain such thoughts at all. And Leibnitz: your automata sound more and more like monads to me.

Also, Presburger arithmetic has an inductive axiom schema that some people count as an infinite set of axioms (check wikipedia)- from a computational standpoint though, you only need to generate some finite set of axioms to perform any given operation.

Clausewitz on wargaming, mathematics, and courage:

"Although our intellect always feels itself urged towards clearness and certainty, still our mind often feels itself attracted by uncertainty.
Instead of threading its way with the understanding along the narrow
path of philosophical investigations and logical conclusions, in order,
almost unconscious of itself, to arrive in spaces where it feels itself a stranger, and where it seems to part from all well-known objects, it prefers to remain with the imagination in the realms of chance and luck.
Instead of living yonder on poor necessity, it revels here in the wealth of possibilities; animated thereby, courage then takes wings to itself, and daring and danger make the element into which it launches itself as a fearless swimmer plunges into the stream."

-from Vom Kriege (On War)
 

You know I just had a thought.

Even if the universe is a computer, it's probably a quantum computer. So its arithmetic probably isn't really Presburger either.

But it's an intesting lesson in how alternative mathematical structures might skate around Godel - And why rationalists shouldn't just take Godel as the final word in despair.
 

See. It's an idea that's in the air. LOL.

New book review in NewScientist.
 

The reviewer of that book, Seth Lloyd has a video at Edge:

The Computational Universe - Requires Quicktime.
 

I am paying particular attention to the 3rd Conference on Artificial General Intelligence in Lugano Switzerland, and I'm just wondering when they are going to post the presentation videos on line?

If anyone wants an idea of what kind of thing to expect, for me, the best general introduction to the field was to watch Marcus Hutter's brilliant lecture at the Singularity Conference last year.

Jurgen Schmidhuber had the most amusing lecture.
 

A lot of buzz around Eric Verlinde's paper from earlier this year, interpreting gravity as an Entropic force.

h/t Technology Review.

The link between gravity, quantum information theory and holography gets ever-stronger.
 

Matoko,
I have been having some interesting conversations on PW since your last comments there.

I have learned a lot. I underestimated the difficulties you were under there. I also learned a lot about the conservative outlook. There were things I didn't fully understand before.

I have always identified with US conservatism in the past. I am not sure I will be able to do so in the future. I have decided that perhaps you were more right on this subject than me.
 

Apparently Euclidean geometry, like Presburger arithmetic, is simple enough to be decidable.

It looks like Erik Verlinde made a mistake.
 

Yeah, the Reference Frame blog was one of the places I had in mind when I spoke about the buzz. I think I may even have unconsciously pinched the phrase "lot of buzz" from one of his earlier comments on the subject. I should have attributed. :(

Re Godel. I have felt all along that Godel would turn out to have not too much to do with physics. Nature knows what she's doin'.
 

Incidently, one of the reasons the whole idea of "gravity as an entropic force" appeals to me, is that it has a long history.

Way back in 1967, Andrei Sakharov had a vaguely similar idea of gravity as the "metric elasticity of space".

e.g. See Gravitation, Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (1973) p426-428
 

Matoko, I wanted to reply to a comment I see you making regularly on other blogs. But I wanted to do it here where you might see it in the noise.

the unregulated “invisible” hand of the market that punched America in the face

Whenever you try to do impossible things; reality ("the market" in this case) will always stop it at some point.

So if a nation endlessly expands credit, and "invests" it in real estate speculation, rather than productive income-producing investment, at some point the bubble bursts.

Look at this chart. It is the most important chart that explains why the crash happened.

Exactly the same will happen if a nation endlessly borrows to fund entitlement handouts rather than productive investment. Of course that includes handouts to bail out disfunctional corporations and rapacious unions as well as handouts to the poor and needy.

The point is, credit is being frittered away on non-productive "investment", so you can never earn enough income from the "investment" to pay it back. Capital (ultimately savings) is being burned up uselessly. The country gets ever-poorer as a result. Debts grow, debt-service costs grow.

At some point it must end. Even the credit of the United States government is not infinite.
 

First new result from LHC. Nothing as spectacular as a new particle, just a growth in "charged-particle pseudorapidity density" against energy faster than most models suggest. The "models" in question seem to be something like QCD approximations with empirically determined parameters, so this may just mean an adjustment of those parameters. Via Lubos Motl.
 

Dear matoko_nishi,

Every day in every way,
I'm starting more and more to agree with you.
The feral right are scary-irrational.
Yes, they are showing many signs of being a religious movement.
Yes Sarah P is a complete whacko. (But I've always thought that)
Yes, grievance conservative christianity does seem to be the unification principle of the socons, at least as I've found them on the web.

- Though there are some econoconservates in the TPM as well, and I still fear the left is in serious denial about the deficit mess.

So help me matoko_nishi. I don't think I could vote GOP in USA today.
For all the left's fiscal sins and socialisty flaws, the right has become the party of total whacko-weird. They are in orbit around Uranus.

It's like the visigoths vs the zombie horde. I don't like either very much but at least goth is still my species.

Signed, Confused.
 

I love this paper by Paola Zizzi. It's exactly the kind of thing I was fantasizing about.

The universe is a quantum computer.
It's a fuzzy spherical lattice.
It computes the laws of physics so the laws of physics are necessarily the computable functions.
By the holographic principle, all the information is coded on the surface of the fuzzy sphere, yielding the mimimum model for Computational Loop Quantum Gravity.

Much more at ArXiv if you search on the author's name.
 

matoko_nishi,

Two of your comments at pw, recently I found interesting. I'd like to comment but I don't like the atmosphere there.

Religion is expensive, speaking in terms of social capital investment.
Church attendance, conformitiy to behavior stands, etc.
Federal welfare is comparatively cheap, so church welfare becomes non-competitive in the local market.

This is really a very perceptive comment. I have never thought of it this way round. You are right though. People usually look at it the other way, that the cost of administration is less when you have volunteer private agencies.

There are really two counterarguments to the traditional argument.

First. It depends what you mean by welfare. If you are talking about wealth transfer or supplements then the state could be more efficient, because everything is highly computerised. If you are talking about social welfare then it depends on the agency. The government usually employs qualified trained social workers, psychologists, councilors - The churches, maybe not so much...it depends on the scale.

Also the government has one huge advantage over private welfare. Say if you have a lot of community-based religion and if it is also stratified by say race, blacks and whites worship in different churches. Then the resources available to a poor church in a poor community, are far less than a wealthy church in a wealthy community. There is redistribution but only within the limits of the narrow community. With private welfare, there may be no equalization across race/community barriers.

With the state, assistance can be applied uniformly by income say, across all classes, races, etc. Across the entire nation. The equalization effect is far more powerful.

Your point that the community invests a huge social capital cost in religion is an angle I'd thought of only in the sense that it perpetuates "superstition" - and because I'm a rationalist, I think of that as already a high cost. But you are right there are other social costs. Conformity to church values, church attendance, etc.

From the pov of the welfare-seeker the government is very cheap. Fill in a application form. Basically that's it. In my country you have many obligations for unemployment benefits, training programs, etc. But for most other kinds of welfare, all you need is an application form.
 

The other comment of your's that I loved was this:

what makes you think i want to win you over?
I want Jeff back on the sane side.
the rest of you is more like point and laff.

ROFLMAO - I'm definitely stealing that one. ;)
 

Horse.
 

One more thing, Matoko, now that I think of it. You asked me why I was proselyting. I really wasn't, but I didn't want to explain it over there.

Really I was trying to find an answer to the question that I asked at the start of my comments on that thread.

Of course if you ask people if they are prejudiced, they will say no, or they will sneer and mock at your foolishness.

To find out what the truth is, you have to persist in the model behavior. Then after a while you start to see what peoples' real attitude is.

I think I know the answer to my question now.
 

Matoko,
your comment #86 at pw, where you ask, "wtf is a Judeo-Christian?" is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

I end up laughing every time I read it.
 

Well, I finally got to see Avatar on BluRay.

I liked the movie for all the obvious reasons. It has extraordinarily beautiful special effects. The second half was very well-correographed action.

The obvious objections were that the Na'vi are way too-human to take them seriously as aliens. It's obviously the reason why we identify with them, and their cause, to the extent we do. In that sense the movie is manipulative.

But the message is not one that I find all that objectionable. That scientific cultures should leave prerationals alone. That we use our power ruthlessly, and far too freely. It is a condemnation of militarism, and exploitation, and in that sense it is unobjectionable.

I still think that the points I made in other places earlier were valid. Eywa is potentially very dangerous, now that she has access to the mind-contents of the humans. Especially the scientist Grace. She has shown herself willing to fight humanity. If she is a darwinian entity, we should expect much more trouble in the future, if she really made use of the knowledge.

Strangely I found the special effects troubling at times. Pandora is brilliantly depicted. Cameron has been inspired, I think, by his experiences in the deep ocean.

But I really felt that the military equipment often had a "studio" look. Lucas could teach Cameron a thing or two about depicting military hardware more believably.

I will watch it again in the future, I predict.
 

Matoko,
Re your race/IQ comments on another blog.

Yes, I see the parallel you are drawing between the two blindspots on the left and the right.

All the same, I have thought about this too, and I have a strong suspicion that you are mistaken about the race/IQ linkage.

Let me explain, and then you come back and tell me where I'm wrong.

First I want to make the point that the point of distinction is not "race". It is ancestral lifestyle.

What we really have is two styles of survival strategy for human populations.

It's a little like there's two reproductive strategies, r and K.

So what I'm saying is there's two different survival strategies wrt the environment. I'm going to call them "Adaptive" and "Modificational".

-------------

Consider the different "stone age" societies that one finds around the world. It doesn't matter where you find them, tundra, jungle, desert, whatever. They have several common characteristics. There is very little modification of the environment, but a huge modification of man and his societal structures.

There is terrific knowledge about the details in the life cycles of the animals and plants, of the seasons, of the patterns in nature, and a constant sense of the need to understand and adapt man and his society to the world. The whole society focuses on learning the innner harmonies of the natural world and adapting to them, leveraging off them in order to survive.

--------------

The best example of the opposite "Modificational" strategy is modern technological civilization.

Stand in the middle of a major modern city, like New York, or London, or Tokyo.

For a hundred kilometers in all directions, there is not a single "natural" thing. Everything is man-made or man-modified.

Humans don't adapt to anything. Whatever doesn't fit is modified until it fits us. If it's too hot, cool it down. If it's too dry, pipe in water. If its too dark, light it.

It is the Modificational lifestyle that selects for high-IQ, high cognitive skills, invention, novel problem solving.

The adaptive lifestyle of the hunter-gatherer needs very different adaptations, memory, sympathy, harmony. Rigorously followed patterns that are tried and true. Thousands of years of tribal wisdom.

So what I'm suggesting is that the high IQ/low IQ thing is not a racial variable, it's an Adaptive vs. Modificational lifestyle variable.

And it depends what strategy your ancestors employed to survive.
 

I've been re-reading Max Tegmark's 2007 Mathematical Universe paper, which he speaks of as a sequel to his 1996 "Theory Of Everything" paper.

One of the things that struck me, that I'd missed earlier, is how much he has shifted from his original Platonic thinking.
In particular he adds a Computable Universe Hypothesis (Section VII), to to his previous Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

As he states, in section VII-E:

"According to the CUH, the mathematical structure
that is our universe is computable and hence well-defined in the strong sense that all its relations can be computed.
There are thus no physical aspects of our universe that are uncomputable/undecidable, eliminating the abovementioned concern that Godel’s work makes it somehow incomplete or inconsistent".

"By drastically limiting the number of mathematical structures to be considered, the CUH also removes potential paradoxes related to the Level IV multiverse. A computable mathematical structure can by definition be specified by a finite number of bits".

In section VII-G, He frets about problems like the loss of the continuum:

"physics has also produced examples of how something continuous (like quantum fields) can produce a discrete solution (like a crystal lattice) which in turn appears like a continuous medium on large scales, which in turns has effective discrete particles (say phonons). Such effective particles may even behave like ones in our standard model raising the possibility that we may have multiple layers of effective continuous and discrete descriptions on top of what is ultimately a discrete computable structure".

Personally, I think that is much less problematic for a post-holographic cosmology anyway, simply because the equivalent "hologram" theory in 2+1 dimensional spacetime already contains quantized-area cells at the transplanckian level.
And it seems to me, a small step to transition thence to a latticelike structure, by using a non-commutative geometry, for instance.

From there, we are within sight of a lattice quantum computer - The ultimate Cellular Automata.

However, Max also says, (Red Alert!!!):

"A first concern about the CUH is that it may sound
like a surrender of the philosophical high ground, effectively conceding that although all possible mathematical structures are “out there”, some have privileged status. However, my guess is that if the CUH turns out to be correct, if will instead be because the rest of the mathematical landscape was a mere illusion, fundamentally undefined and simply not existing in any meaningful sense".

But what about Platonism? Oh Noes!!!!

So there you have it.
Has Max Tegmark maybe joined the computationalists?
Is he really a pure Platonist any more?

If I am reading this right,
welcome to the darkside Max.
.
 

This then sums up my current thinking on physics and Godel.

1. Every quantum system can be simulated on a quantum computer.
In particular, if this universe is described by a quantum field theory, then it can be simulated on a suitable extended-lattice quantum computer.
Also there is no loss of generality if we think of the universe as a quantum computer that computes its own state.

2. There are only a finite number of computation steps required to compute the universe.
Even if the Universal Quantum Computer runs at the maximum physical speed - One cycle every Planck time (5.39 x 10^-44 seconds) - there are still only a finite number of clock cycles since the Big Bang, 13.75 Billion years ago.
So a quantum computer that computes the current state of the universe can always halt.

3. If we postulate that no physical influence can travel faster than light,
i.e. We limit any causal influences to information that originates in our own past light-cone.
Then there is a finite amount of information in the observable universe.
This would be true, whether we consider the finite amount of matter and energy in the visible universe - around 10^80 atoms, 10^88 photons etc.
It also applies if we include all the gravitational quantum states - limited to 10^120 bits by the Bekenstein entropy bound.

Conclusion: The objective universe is finite and computable.
On a finite quantum computer.
As long as physics limits itself to the knowable physical universe,
that started in the Big Bang,
and interacts with us at no more than the speed of light.

Empirical physics will never have to worry about Godel incompleteness.
 

Are there any circumstances at all when physics has to worry about Godel incompleteness?

I would say yes, but it is subtle.

The problem arises if we use our knowledge of the objective universe to construct a Platonic model of the universe using idealized Platonic elements - actual infinities etc.
If we then use the Platonic physics model to make inferences about the universe beyond the empirically-validated limits.

If we ask questions like:
- What physical structure underlies the computable universe?
- What happened before the Big Bang?
- What exists in the wider landscape outside the observable universe?

The introduction of Platonic elements into the theory, and the use of those elements to infer "unobjective" truths will force you to confront Godel incompleteness.

But I would argue this is not paradoxical to the empiricist.
Whenever we go beyond the limits of the empirically validated and validatable, we risk introducing unknown and unknowable elements into our theory, that could invalidate the theory.

The process of extrapolating beyond the empirical is inherently fraught.

That is why the empirical physicist must always excercise discipline to restrict positive assertions to the empirically knowable. All extrapolations beyond this - no matter how intriguing they are philosophically - are uncertain idealized mental constructs. We can never really be sure they are true.

Godel restricts physics in the sense that, only the empirical and the validatable can be certain to be complete.
Theories can never really be better than the evidence that supports them.
If the evidence is limited than so is the range of the theory. Extrapolation beyond that is inherently speculative and uncertain.
 

I believe physics can forever evade Godel, by limiting our use of Platonic models.

Physics is a FINITE enterprise based on finite empirical observations.

At the very least we need to be cautious about using Platonic models to extrapolate beyond the finite realm of the empirically known.
 

you shall be missed...great site! http://rainbarrel.ca/
 

This is not to deny that the Platonic model may often be the simplest model to specify, if one thinks of it in Ockham's Razor terms.

But all the same, a model that has only been tested with data from the observable universe, may have all sorts of anomalies, when applied to aspects of the cosmos that are totally unobservable.

This occurs already with GR for instance, when one uses the Platonic theory to predict the structure of the interiors of black holes. This is a region which is utterly unobservable for an external observer.

The GR predictions are fascinating and irresistable, but should be treated with caution. No-one has ever seen inside a black hole to confirm the predictions.

Also other models are known, e.g. gravastars, semiclassical black stars, etc. They look almost identical to GR black holes to an external observer. An empiricist has no grounds to dismiss these alternative models.
 

You may recall, I had an interesting discussion some time back, here and on PW, about the use of robotic VR avatars on the moon as a much cheaper alternative for lunar exploration and industrialization.

The main advantages of robot avatars, is we only need to provide for one-way trips, they can be refueled in situ with solar or nuclear power. They are less vulnerable to radiation, and don't need the complex life-support systems of human astronauts.

The main disadvantage is the nearly 3 second round-trip signal time delay. I thought this would be manageable with a robot that had built in reflexes and 3 seconds of autonomy.

Now I see Japan is proposing to actually do it.

The love affair between the Japanese and their robots is amazing.
 

See, I was right about the influence that Atlas Shrugged is having on the current conservative political narrative.
 

OTOH, I have thought for a while that Godel could be a serious problem for all forms of Platonic monotheism.

The problem arises from the idea that there is a single (first) cause for all Platonic reality.

It doesn't matter whether you consider God to be a temporal cause or a logical cause. i.e. did he create the universe in the past and walk away? Or does he constantly create and support the universe?

In either case the idea of a prime cause must be Godel incomplete. So we will have things in Platonic reality which will be true but which cannot be explained by the first cause.

So invent a second cause.

But then the two causes combined are still Godel incomplete.

So by infinite regress, if there is at least one first cause, there must be an infinite number of causes.

By Godel incompleteness, there cannot be a finite number of gods. You can have no gods (atheism), or you can have an infinity of gods.

But you cannot have one God (monotheism), or three gods(trinitarianism), or 144 gods.

I don't know how to escape this argument.
 

I think perhaps the simplest solution may be to just deny the actual existence of Platonic reality.

If we say that only empirical reality exists, then we avoid a huge number of potential metaphysical problems and paradoxes.

And in practice, that is my own position.

Platonistic speculation, is a game you play with your brain.
 

There's also an important difference in the way Platonists approach incompleteness, versus the way empiricists approach experimental anomalies.

The Godelian case is that any sufficiently rich theory will contain statements that are true but which can't be proved from the theory. The only solution is to invent a new set of self-consistent axioms that can incorporate the previously incomplete case.

But for empiricists that is not enough. If we find a phenomenon that exists but cannot be explained by our current theory, it's not enought to find a new theory. We need to find the theory that nature actually uses.

Physics is the search for Nature's truth, not Platonic truth (of which there may be many viable alternatives). Physics is a much more constrained and tightly focussed project than mathematics.

Physics deliberately seeks out anomalies, so that it can learn more about Nature, and Nature's truth.

Physics is in no way constrained by the fact that our theories are "incomplete". It is empirical incompleteness that provides the greatest opportunity to discover new natural truths.

That's why empirical science alone is Nature's Tao.
;)

The "faith" of physics is not that logic is a perfect guide to truth. The "faith" of physics is that Nature is.

The faith of scientism is that (Bayesian) reason, guided by empiricism, is the only path to find Nature's Truth - And that Nature's empirical truth is the only truth that is actually known to exist.
 

That's why Godel shot down the Platonic project.

But physics sails on unharmed.

Our search is not for Platonic truth. Our search is for Nature's Truth, and Nature herself is our flawless guide.
 

So here is my scientistic Universal Anti-Godel charm:

Any time you hit a Godel incompleteness barrier, do an experiment, to find out how Nature solved it.

Then press on regardless, bold cosmic explorer.

The Tao that can be known is not Tao.
The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.
Tao is all that exists and may exist;
"The World" is only a map of what exists and may exist.
- Lao Tsu.
 

That's has been my understanding of the completeness/empiricism issue for some time- masterfully stated, I must say. It is also why I was alarmed at your suggestion regarding an information-theoretic event horizon, if you will. If we do reach a point in space-time where no new information from the universe reaches us then we will be unable to continue experimenting when we reach a Godel-barrier (as you put it): ugly. It's a personal taste thing- the universe is under no obligation to comply with my aesthetic whims.

However, I do wonder (play the hypothesis game with me here): if there was some sentient entity existing during the first stellar cycle, thus before the emergence of carbon, could said entity have predicted (from the laws of physics alone) the eventual existence of carbon based life? If so, then physics implies life- if not, then even though we may 'run out of data' in one sense there may still be local 'emergent phenomena' (hate that term btw) which we have yet to encounter and which will provide data bearing on the laws of nature.

Also, Leibnitz was very aware of the infinite regress and first causes problem- his solution was to posit an infinite number of independent but perfectly correlated first causes- he called them monads.

Since the Enlightenment it has become fashionable to assume that living beings are mechanistic assemblages of deterministic components. I don't propose replacing this premise with anything else- I just wonder how justified we are in retaining it and how we might proceed without it.
 

On the earlier topic of Goths and Zombies:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/

and BTW, where do all you cool kids hang out now?
 

Dionysos,

The possibility of a horizon to discovery is very real.

If the Hubble expansion is accelerating, as the current Concordance model suggests - as a result of Dark Energy, the cosmological constant - Then the galaxies are gradually disappearing over the red shift horizon.

There will come a time, when our own burnt-out, gravitationally-bound, Local Cluster will be all that is left to the observable universe. Will it then be possible to deduce the Big Bang, without being able to see any other galaxies? - Just our own local cluster sitting in flat, empty, dark, space-time.

I think maybe, if you can work out the story of nucleosynthesis.

Actually my current expectation is that we only have a finite time anyway to solve the cosmic puzzle before heat death hits us. But by then it may be possible to create new Big Bangs technologically, if we could figure out all the physics of space-time. You too can have your own private universe.

I'm not sure that intelligence could occur without carbon. Sometimes people suggest computation on weird Fermi states on the surfaces of neutron stars and the like. Boltzmann brains can occur spontaneously, if you have metals and semiconductors.

The Godel incompleteness of the First Cause problem is just one of my favorite rants, against the inclination Abrahamic religions have, to always take it for granted, that monotheism is innately "superior" to polytheism.

Ain't necessarily so. There could be an infinite number of universes, an infinite number of gods. And in Platonic reality, if you believe in Platonic reality, all possible truths are actual truths.

The take home lesson for me, is that the search for truth cannot be purely intellectual. We are unable to proceed meaningfully, without empirical guidance from nature. Godel is really just the last nail in the coffin of pure theorism.

It's not that logic fails, it's that logic without empirical guidance fails. You need both.
 

As to where all the cool kids hang out. I comment here rarely. And sometimes on TheAmericanScene.com

I lurk far more than I comment. Mostly I lurk at financial and science sites now.

Matoko has a diary at quell.dailykos.com that she's promoting in various places.
Seems to be her current blog.
 

Oh dear, I see Matoko and her nemesis, KM got their comments deleted from the latest thread on TAS.

I got one of my comments deleted too, the one that addressed Matoko, by name. (Sob)

He's closed the thread to further comments. :(
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Matoko,

OK. Here's my latest theory:

God is a giant turritopsis nutricula, and he made the turritopsis nutricula in his own image and likeness.

Meet the only immortal animal on Earth.
 

Hey, I've just realized I can build a whole religion around this:

When we die, our souls are reborn as the immortal turritopsis nutricula, to float forever in the World Ocean.
 

We are doing live paranormal investigations where we will be recording everything on video and audio. Evps and full videos will be on our website there is also a forum for anyone to talk to us and its all free to join. we are the closest you will ever come to knowing the truth!


www.dorsetghostinvestigators.com