Re: The Dialogue of Existence

From: Eray Ozkural exa (erayo_at_bilkent.edu.tr)
Date: 02/05/04 

Date: 5 Feb 2004 05:26:02 -0800

manicmarvin <manicmarvin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<401ceda9$0$41757$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>...
> Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>
> > manicmarvin <manicmarvin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<401c0611$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>...
> >> Or can there be existence without meaning?
> >
> > I don't know. Some random strings look meaningless to me,
>
> There is still meaning in them that you recognise them as strings
>

Yes, this reminds me of Godel, Escher, Bach. To transmit a message,
one first puts it in a frame whose existence can be clearly
distinguished from the outside world. It is a package that says "Look
inside".

There is a package, and that alone is meaningful as you say. Though,
what I said was that only "some" random strings look meaningless to me
because they are too complex for me to fathom. Trivial fact: even if
the string "001" might be random for a formalism of computation I've
chosen, it would seem meaningful to me. Of course the vast majority of
random strings are meaningless to me, and I cannot compare myself to
infinity.

Our most concise thoughts might look meaningless to an alien.
(contradiction?) However, it should be apparent that this post, for
instance, however concise it is written, cannot be random in the
mathematical sense.

Any random English sentence composed of 11 words would be meaningless.
If linguistics has any truth to it, then it should be the case. At
this point, I'm suspicious of the statement, though :)

> > yet Chaitin
> > says that large minimal programs (to produce a bit string given null
> > data) are random (maximally complex). I had in the past suggested that
> > meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Possibly there is so much that
> > is meaningless to us.
> >
> > Overall, it sounds like another definitional issue. Something Dan
> > absolutely hates. :)
>
> Yeah :)

Ah, yes, welcome the digital Wittgenstein. Our metaphysics is pure non
sense.
 
> >> For that matter can there be isolation in isolation?
> >
> > I didn't define that I think. The above 2. is just another way of
> > saying that we can regard existence in one sense as the following:
> > That which exists is that which communicates. (Better said in Latin I
> > suppose)
> > I can't derive the physical answer in an instant, but perhaps you
> > could tell me. Is there any physical entity which does not communicate
> > with the rest of the universe at all? (Except "inside of"
> > singularities?)
>
> What does a rock communicate to me? Are the photons bouncing of it to be
> considered its communication with me. Are the signals in my nerves as I
> stub my toe against it its communication to me?

Yes, they are considered its communication with you. Signals in your
nerves, as well. Passing of any sign is considered communication. Does
not a sign by definition convey information? :) [Here, I'm pointing
out to a bunch of potentially circular definitions]

[snip]
> >> > 5. The dialogue of existence is a perpetual (but unfortunately not
> >> > eternal) discourse between the self and the universe.
> >> > 6. Hence, the dialogue is a sufficient and necessary condition for
> >> > existence in this sense.
> >> > 7. One sense of computation is its often overlooked message passing
> >> > facet.
> >>
> >> Hmm, this requires more than one computation. And depending on your
> >> definition of process, the existence of two or more simultaniously
> >> existing processes.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. A parallel computation is regarded as a single
> > computation, not many. There is multitude in unity, however.
>
> Ok, but in that case you just defined the entire universe as one
> computation. Independant computations cannot exist. In fact to plural goes
> out the window entirely

There are two formulations of this idea. One in a general physicalist,
language oriented setting, and the other in a digital philosophy
setting. I think my post was concerned with the latter (restricted
case) as you emphasize. It wouldn't be quite true if the whole
universe were not a single computation since no computation would be
entirely independent. However, it is neither the case that every
computation is completely dependent on every other computation. There
can be a good deal of locality in processing, and that is perhaps what
we perceive as multitude.

[snip]
> If so, your "hence" is not warranted. No gaps in logic please.
>

I realized that later on. Hopefully corrected :)

> > I am simply giving another definition of mind, however. According to
> > the above view, the mind is just the inner dialogue.
>
> Yeah, thought as much

And that I think was the goal of the exercise. The inner dialogue is a
lively existence, though. Perhaps as lively as that of the entire
universe. If we find that the very fabric of universe is reiterated in
the architecture of mind, that would be a great find. Finally, we
would be able to relate existence to knowledge.

The heavy discussions of consciousness speak of an inner space, a
universe of ideas each of which is a discourse in the dialogue of
existence. And in unexpected certainty, the inner dialogue is as
objective and deterministic as the entire universe.

> >> > 11. However, this line of thought is not identical to theories of
> >> > Wittgenstein/Quine/Davidson for some apparent reasons although there
> >> > is much similarity which I do not like myself. :)
> >> > 12. The dialogue can be used to reason about non-computational
> >> > existence and this was exactly the kind of problem for which I
> >> > developed this philosophical device.
> >> > 13. Consider a world of uncomputable bit strings. Now imagine a
> >> > dialogue that consists of two parties choosing bit strings from this
> >> > domain according to a rule of their own and uttering them in turns.
> >>
> >> Yes, and then what?
> >
> > A meaningless existence.
>
> Right, no wonder nothing registered :)

However, our universe can be exactly like that. For instance, some
mathematical truths seem to be true for no reason. That is what
incompleteness theorems convince us.

The domain and entities I described in 13. are purely metaphysical,
talking of them is the same thing as talking about angels and heaven
and for that I apologize to the readership. However, I'm afraid that
we might have to posit something like that if we took digital
philosophy to be correct. I'm not saying that digital philosophy
necessarily enforces belief in God. But if it says that the infinite
structure of mathematics is random and exists with no reason, it would
better give a _better_ reason than God!

> >> > Did you find this a view too behaviorist or could there be any benefit
> >> > to the concept of this strange dialogue?
> >>
> >> Depends on what you're after.
> >
> > Evaluating the efficacy of modern communicative theories for
> > metaphysics.
>
> Hmm, I wouldn't count on getting much of use out of this

I think I've already demonstrated a use. It shows how computationalism
can be regarded as linguistic idealism and vica versa in the most
general sense.

Furthermore, I've shown that this extended linguistic idealism can
deal with existence beyond computation, in the process exposing the
reminder that digital philosophy posits an infinite number of abstract
objects without giving a better explanation than my God-like dialogue
generator machine!

On second reading, I realized that the last paragraph might not be
clear to others. A mistake I frequently make. It is obvious that the
dialogue generator machine in 13. is "God-like" because
  a. It determines the logical structure of the universe
  b. It has access to an infinite domain of random strings. If the
universe is a computation, it is decreed that its habitants are
isolated from such a domain.

Being a "hard-core materialist" like Dan, although I keep dealing with
"soft issues" such as philosophy and music, the theological character
of these metaphilosophical explanations annoy me to no end. From the
discussions on digitalphilosophy list at yahoogroups.com, I've
gathered that digital physicists believe there is no fundamental
source of randomness in the universe. So far, that is fine and it
seems in accordance with the determinism of Leibniz. However, they do
not seem to have read Godel's unpublished "Is Mathematics Syntax of
Language?" paper which dwelled on a _seemingly_ different subject. It
doesn't matter if you are dealing with a finitary system, it is still
incomplete and I do not yet believe that their system can bootstrap
from nothingness with a few Linear Feedback Shift Registers. How,
then, is it the case that, every complexity-growing process stumbles
upon the _same_ logical constraints? What set those limits? My
intuition tells me that digital philosophy does not only posit a
computational universe but also an underlying reality whose nature is
not evident to the naked eye.

I hope I have done well in showing there may be open problems in
digital philosophy. The explanations make a lot of sense, but the
devil is in the details.

Best Regards, 

--
Eray Ozkural
Quantcast