Just had one if these long discussions with a smart mathematician, and now I notice that sometimes I get the impression that computationalism (the only working philosophical edifice left) is non-obvious to 90% of people. I find that genuinely puzzling.
-
-
-
Replying to @Evollaqi
Even dualism and the different versions of idealism seem to require a computational foundation. Every supernatural entity must ultimately have natural causes (even if those are in a parent universe).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Could you elaborate? What is your account of causation here? Why would a non-contingent entity (say, the number 2) require a cause? Why does your account of causation entail that dualism and idealism require a computational foundation? Thank you for letting me pick your brain!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Evollaqi
Causality is a feature of a model that separates a domain into independent, interfacing systems, whereby the evolution of one system is conditional of interfaced states of the other. If you treat the universe as a single, evolving state, then there is no causation within it.
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
In my usual view, all of mathematics is a priori and does not evolve, so the number 2 cannot be caused. But if you treat Peano's axioms as a computational generator operating on a Platonic substrate, then 2 is caused by a metamathematical machine executing Peano's axioms.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
The question of the cause of 2 is the same as the question of the cause of the shape of the Mandelbrot fractal. The natural numbers are literally a fractal, with Peano's axioms being one possible rule set, and we discover (not create) them and their properties by computation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
If a universe presents itself via discernible differences (information) and is regular enough for computation, then its substrate (if it has one) must necessarily and sufficiently be a computer, i.e. a system capable of regular state change with Turing universality.
4 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
To me this assertion appears to ignore the fact that even the computability of maths is conjecture not a fact ; so I would say that where you use 'must' in this and the following tweet, that 'I conjecture' would be more accurate?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Mathematics is mostly uncomputable. The existence of turing universal computers that can do constructive math is an empirical fact.
-
-
So why think anything else is computable if even maths isn't? Unrelatedly I confess I was riled by “computationalism the only working philosophical edifice” in a way I wouldn't be by “computationalism is an interesting idea worth exploring.”
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
If you have any other philosophical system that can explain mind and universe from first principles, I’d love to hear about it!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 18 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.