Tom, Quentin:
The idea that any string of symbols/ any action/ any apparently inert object
can signify anything at all if appropriately interpreted is a recurrent one
in list discussions. In much of the philosophical literature this seems to
be either a problem to explain away or a self-evident absurdity with which
to attack some competing theory if it can be shown to reduce to this - eg.
see David Chalmer's paper, "Does a rock implement every finite state
automaton?". One of the few positive treatments of the idea I am aware of is
Greg Egan's "dust" theory as presented in his novel "Permutation City"
(although of course this may just be a plot device rather than Egan's actual
view), but if you do a Google search for Egan/Permutation City/dust even the
reviewers who liked the book mostly hedge their praise by adding that, of
course, the "dust" theory is nonsense. The conclusion has to be that either
the theory really is nonsense, or else it's very frightening for anyone who
wants to maintain even a modicum of mainstream conservatism in thinking
about the world. Perhaps it is the ultimate expression of nihilism: not only
does nothing have any meaning, but also everything and nothing have every
meaning, debasing the very idea of "meaning".
My take on the idea is this. It is the case that any symbol string etc. has
any and every meaning, but as Tom suggests, "defining meaning ultimately
requires a person". So the vibration of the atoms in my desk maps onto the
works of Shakespeare - who can deny it? - but this is a rather empty claim,
because for us to know the mapping rules would entail a knowledge of (at
least) the works of Shakespeare in some recognisable language in the first
place. The vibration of atoms in my desk also maps onto any arbitrary
computation, including a conscious computation (assuming that such a thing
is possible), given appropriate mapping rules. Again the claim rings hollow
for us, because to know the rules governing the mapping would entail a
knowledge of (at least) the details of the computation in some already
understood language, whether at the lowest level (machine code) or the
highest (the final human interface). However, in the case of a conscious
program there is a difference, which perhaps suggests a definition of
consciousness: it provides its own audience and its own meaning. If the
works of Shakespeare vibrating in my desk are not recognised as such by
someone who understands these things they are no more than noise; but the
conscious beings vibrating in my desk, although completely cut off from our
own physical universe, nevertheless have their own internal lives, possibly
but not necessarily solipsistic. It is a small step from there to see that
the physical connection (the desk, in this case) is actually superfluous,
and all possible worlds (including all possible conscious beings) exist by
virtue of the Platonic existence of numbers. Explaining why we find
ourselves in the present orderly universe rather than one of the infinite
other possibilities is then problematic, and is the subject of the posts of
others on this list with a better facility with mathematics than I have.
Stathis Papaioannou
>Quentin:
>
>I don't know from your wink at the end whether you are half-serious or
>not.
>But just in case (and Bruno can do better than I can on this), I think
>I can correctly appeal to Peano's distinction between mathematical and
>linguistic paradox. The meaning of the symbols is defined at a higher
>level than the encoding itself. Your statement turns on the word
>"chosen", which is a verb. This goes back to my other post in this
>thread that, in order to keep from going into an infinite regress of
>meaninglessness, defining meaning ultimately requires a person.
>
>Tom
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Quentin Anciaux <quentin.anciaux.domain.name.hidden>
>To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Sent: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:02:14 +0200
>Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
>
>Le Lundi 3 Avril 2006 18:55, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> > GWTW = "01001010110 ... binary("Frankly, my dear,...") ...
>01001101001".
>
>Depending on the chosen encoding scheme, the binary representation
>could be
>any finite binary string, even this '0' or '1', in this case all the
>information is in fact contained in the encoding scheme (which itself
>of
>course can be represented as a binary string using another encoding
>scheme,
>and this ad infinitum ;)
>
>Quentin
>
>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Apr 04 2006 - 03:50:50 PDT