Le 30-janv.-06, à 22:07, Benjamin Udell wrote, in part, sometimes ago
(30 January):
> Most people, however, do have some sort of views, which are or have
> been significant in their lives, about what are traditionally called
> metaphysical questions -- God, freedom, immortality, psycho-physical
> relationships, etc. Many have one or another kind of metaphysical
> faith. It seems increasingly clear to me that Bruno is doing a machine
> metaphysics, or a computer metaphysics, or a metaphysics of, by, and
> for computers or machines
Yes. I am interested in what machines (and other entities) can prove
about themselves.
And also about what is true about themselves, but that those
machines/entitities cannot prove, but can deliver as true in a way or
another.
The propositional parts of those discourse has been captured by the
modal logical systems G and G* respectively (Solovay 1976).
> (I can't remember why Bruno opts for "machines" instead of
> "computers.").
I use "computer" for universal machine. "Ordinateur" in french. All
loebian machines I talk about are universal machine. All universal
machine "believing" in classical tautologies and in the laws of
addition and multiplication, and in some induction formulas is lobian.
> It's a shame that the word "metaphysics" is ruled out by (if I
> remember correctly, it was in a post a while back) reaction of
> intellectuals in Belgium.
In Belgium, in France and in other countries, I'm afraid, among most
scientists, I mean.
I rule out also "metaphysics" because I don't know what it means.
Historically it concerns the books which were on the sides of the books
on physics in the texts by Aristotle (but is this a legend?).
In "metaphysics", "meta" has not the same sense that "meta" in computer
sciences and mathematical logics. Create confusions.
> Moreover, "machine metaphysics" is kind of catchy in its alliterative
> way.
Sure. Look: digital machine metaphysics is a branch of metamathematics!
> Metaphysics is not religion but instead a philosophical study of
> questions which are among the important ones in religion. Philosophy,
> however, can be applied in living, so the distinction is not a barrier
> impenetrable in practice (or, therefore, in theory either)
I don't even really believe in any precise frontiers between all those
things. It is useful only for the curriculum vitae and for searching
job and getting social profile, but any fundamental questioning is up
to eventually move frontiers or suppress some.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Mon Feb 13 2006 - 11:48:06 PST