# Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin

**From:** Eray Ozkural exa (*erayo_at_bilkent.edu.tr*)

**Date:** 08/31/04

**Next message:**Jym: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"**Previous message:**David C. Ullrich: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"**In reply to:**Torkel Franzen: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"**Next in thread:**Torkel Franzen: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"**Reply:**Torkel Franzen: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: 31 Aug 2004 04:28:07 -0700

Hello Torkel,

Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se> wrote in message

news:<vcbbrgtoqdt.fsf@beta19.sm.ltu.se>...

*> erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) writes:
*

*>
*

*> > Raatikainen does *not* understand
*

*>
*

*> Instead of going on about what Raatikainen does not understand, can
*

*> you define or explain in what sense some mathematical statements are
*

*> true for a reason and others are not?
*

Yes, you are right; that's a very fair request. I think Chaitin's

statements, too, are not quite precise sometimes, at least to a

philosophical audience. He might be assuming that the reader already

thinks like him, sidestepping some of the real issues which may occur

to the readership.

Chaitin's argument is, at a coarse-grain level of representation,

roughly:

1. Define the halting probability of a program, Omega.

2. Prove that Omega is random by defining random real and showing its

equivalence to Solovay randomness.

3. Show by arithmetization that Omega occurs in number theory.

4. Therefore, there are mathematical constructs in foundations of

mathematics which are random...

*>From this Chaitin immediately proceeds to the conclusion that "the
*

randomness of these constructs show that the bits of Omega are true

for no reason". In my opinion, this neglects apparently needed

rigorous arguments to justify the philosophical conclusion.

Hence, my own philosophical argument to show a way to get to the

metaphysical claims in Chaitin's statement:

1. The halting problem's structure is random, it cannot be attributed

to mechanical causes less complex than itself (by the very definition

of randomness), in this case infinite complexity.

2. It does not seem likely that the world is more complex than Omega

itself.

3. Therefore, the bits of Omega are true for no mechanical cause

(reason) in this universe.

I have spent some effort in furnishing a persuasive argument to reach

Chaitin's realist conclusions. Nevertheless, I do not endorse this

argument myself, because I do not consider myself a realist. There may

be some philosophical loopholes in the argument for the existence of

Omega; the whole argument has a somewhat disturbing theological

flavor: we seem to be presupposing what we wanted to prove.

This might not be the only possible argument to obtain similar

conclusions. For instance, there is an alternative line of

argumentation that assumes the equivalence of *minds* (and not

necessarily of physical universe as implicit in the above argument) to

*discrete computation*. Since mathematical thought is a kind of

thought, limits of minds apply to mathematics itself. Then, the random

structure of the halting problem (i.e. which programs halt), applies

to mathematics itself: mathematics at large is irreducible (because in

the idealist sense, Omega is part of number theory), and we cannot

reason about its axiomatic truth. (For us, some mathematical

statements are true for no reason!)

This second approach is less problematic, but might still be cured by

a constructivist interpretation. [*]

Although I have read some of Chaitin's online books, I have not read

all of them. I am unaware of a detailed argument in his works similar

to the two arguments which I presented.

Best Regards,

-- Eray Ozkural [*] I think that a constructivist interpretation may be preferable.

**Next message:**Jym: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"**Previous message:**David C. Ullrich: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"**In reply to:**Torkel Franzen: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"**Next in thread:**Torkel Franzen: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"**Reply:**Torkel Franzen: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]