3 ms·

This article does a great deal to point out the problem, but then just kicks the can down the road. Yes, metaphysics comes before Logic but metametaphysics com

by ukj 5y ago

This article does a great deal to point out the problem, but then just kicks the can down the road. Yes, metaphysics comes before Logic but metametaphysics comes before metaphysics. Ad infinitum. All this does is shift the discussion from the laws of logic to the laws of metaphysics - it is turtles all the way down. There is no way to get off this hamster wheel without a shift of perspective, but computer scientists should feel right at home anywhere recursion arises. Focus on the laws and the lawmaker. What are laws? Why do we create laws? What do we use laws for? How effective are we at encoding these laws in language? When we think of laws as designed rather than discovered we become more conscientious in our own inventions.

drewcoo 5y ago
Which assumes a designer, so now we've compounded the presuppostions. And I don't see how more presuppositions means were more conscientious of them. Or conscious of them, if that was your meaning.
- ukj 5y ago
  The designer is not assumed. I am it. I design formal systems. Formal systems are human inventions. Any expression or description of the “laws of thought” are subject to the limits of self-expression and the expressive power of your formal language. The “laws of thought” are rules of thumb. Useful Heuristics - not universal authorities. I recommend Luciano Floridi’s recent work in “The Logic of information: Philosophy as conceptual design.” https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-logic-of-information-a-theory-of-philosophy-as-conceptual-design/ https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-logic-of-information-a-theor...
  - User23 5y ago
    Does the universe have a designer then? It’s a pretty bold metaphysical assumption that the universe is undesigned and purposeless, but it somehow gave rise to an environment where intelligent beings can design formal systems that accurately describe the design of a system with no designer. This is part of the appeal of the simulationist philosophy, it allows intelligent design, but without the assumptions of monotheism. Naturally like everything else in this space it in turn introduces new difficulties.
    - techbrobane 5y ago
      > It’s a pretty bold metaphysical assumption that the universe is undesigned and purposeless Nah, IMO it's much more "bold" to assume that the universe is designed and has a purpose.
    - ukj 5y ago
      None of our formal systems “accurately describe the design”. They all have domains of applicability - operational parameters. The appeal of the simulation hypothesis is that IF our formalisms could actually explain all of reality THEN it follows by logical implication that reality can be simulated. This logical implication is true because formal languages are Turing-recognizable. You can “explain” a formalism to a computer. You can program the computer with the Theory of Everything therefore universe can be run on a computer. This is ALL in the abstract. Unfortunately humans have the propensity to commit the mind-projection fallacy.
voxl 5y ago
Its not turtles all the way down, because there is a preexisting substrate that allows the discussion to happen in the first place. It is not a presupposition, because to merely state the _possibility_ of it being a presupposition necessitates its existence. There has to be some kind of preexisting substrate that enables thought. A recursive function can't run without a machine to run it.
- ukj 5y ago
  You mean like the entity which invents/designs/defines the concepts of "substrate", "possibility","necessity" and "existence" ? The entity which measures and then captures regularities in "the substrate" in the forms of Mathematical equations (formal languages) - that which we call "laws of physics"? Even though physicists haven't yet solved the measurement problem. The entity that is trying to understand what it is made of and how it works? The entity that is trying to define itself? The function is running, alright and it's trying to reverse-engineer its runtime. The question is whether the function is recursive. Most functions refer to themselves as "I".
krona 5y ago
This article does a great deal to point out the problem, but then just kicks the can down the road Isn't this the problem with cynical criticism in general? It's an intellectual dead end, by definition.

by ukj 5y ago

drewcoo 5y ago

Which assumes a designer, so now we've compounded the presuppostions. And I don't see how more presuppositions means were more conscientious of them. Or conscious of them, if that was your meaning.

ukj 5y ago
The designer is not assumed. I am it. I design formal systems. Formal systems are human inventions. Any expression or description of the “laws of thought” are subject to the limits of self-expression and the expressive power of your formal language. The “laws of thought” are rules of thumb. Useful Heuristics - not universal authorities. I recommend Luciano Floridi’s recent work in “The Logic of information: Philosophy as conceptual design.” https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-logic-of-information-a-theory-of-philosophy-as-conceptual-design/ https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-logic-of-information-a-theor...
- User23 5y ago
  Does the universe have a designer then? It’s a pretty bold metaphysical assumption that the universe is undesigned and purposeless, but it somehow gave rise to an environment where intelligent beings can design formal systems that accurately describe the design of a system with no designer. This is part of the appeal of the simulationist philosophy, it allows intelligent design, but without the assumptions of monotheism. Naturally like everything else in this space it in turn introduces new difficulties.
  - techbrobane 5y ago
    > It’s a pretty bold metaphysical assumption that the universe is undesigned and purposeless Nah, IMO it's much more "bold" to assume that the universe is designed and has a purpose.
  - ukj 5y ago
    None of our formal systems “accurately describe the design”. They all have domains of applicability - operational parameters. The appeal of the simulation hypothesis is that IF our formalisms could actually explain all of reality THEN it follows by logical implication that reality can be simulated. This logical implication is true because formal languages are Turing-recognizable. You can “explain” a formalism to a computer. You can program the computer with the Theory of Everything therefore universe can be run on a computer. This is ALL in the abstract. Unfortunately humans have the propensity to commit the mind-projection fallacy.

voxl 5y ago

Its not turtles all the way down, because there is a preexisting substrate that allows the discussion to happen in the first place. It is not a presupposition, because to merely state the _possibility_ of it being a presupposition necessitates its existence. There has to be some kind of preexisting substrate that enables thought. A recursive function can't run without a machine to run it.

ukj 5y ago
You mean like the entity which invents/designs/defines the concepts of "substrate", "possibility","necessity" and "existence" ? The entity which measures and then captures regularities in "the substrate" in the forms of Mathematical equations (formal languages) - that which we call "laws of physics"? Even though physicists haven't yet solved the measurement problem. The entity that is trying to understand what it is made of and how it works? The entity that is trying to define itself? The function is running, alright and it's trying to reverse-engineer its runtime. The question is whether the function is recursive. Most functions refer to themselves as "I".

krona 5y ago

This article does a great deal to point out the problem, but then just kicks the can down the road Isn't this the problem with cynical criticism in general? It's an intellectual dead end, by definition.