RE: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Jim Andrews wrote:

> godel's work, for instance, is about formal language systems, and the
> results apply across the field of math and also, as we see via Turing's
> related work, to computing problems and what is possible (and impossible) in
> computing. The study of formal language systems, at least in math, used to
> be called meta-mathematics. Though there are applied areas of it, it is
> primarily part of pure mathematics (as opposed to 'applied').
>
Of course! Which is where Penrose begins in his critique of non-quantum
operations in the mind.

However with organism, via the work of Land and Heinz von Foerster,
there's also gestural logics - superimpositions, that operate where strict
mathematics falls short. (See his work on color theory and Horn, later
on.)

> also, the philosophical implications of the work of godel have been deeply
> felt concerning the nature of human knowledge.

Yes.

> it used to be that physics was the exemplar of the application of
> mathematics in the world. but now, in our age where computers are so
> prevalent and important in so many areas of endevor, the mathematics of
> computer science is at least as prominent. and the mathematics of computer
> science is, at its base, concerned with the properties of languages, given
> that computing is, in a certain sense, all about processing strings of
> characters, processing language, whether the characters encode text or other
> media, whether the characters are numbers or letters or whatever.
>
I'd say the properties of formal languages. When MIT tried to apply for
example Chomsky, they fell short (from Minsky).

> like undecidable propositions, which are neither independent axioms nor
> theorems.
>
Which is where nonstandard analysis comes in.

> i was a bit surprised to read you say that "I find the world meaningless,
> human life, culture, etc. ultimately
> meaningless, except what we assign to it. There's no rationality to the
> world, no ultimate logic. There is jostling, juggling, from the levels of
> strings, virtual particles, on up to political parties. "
>
> No principle of peace? Or whatever you want to call it. Or Karma. Tamara
> speaks of finding "harmony". Or 'love' or 'cooperation'?
>
No, nothing outside of human (or other organic) culture. Love and
cooperation are survival strategies.

After reading far too much about Auschwitz and the medical trials at
Nuremberg - I have no belief in karma or harmony whatsoever.

> When I was young, I read literature with passion, seeking many things, to be
> a writer, understanding, meaning. I remember feeling that MacBeth and Lao
> Tse came to the same realization, that, as you say, the world is meaningless
> except what we assign to it. For MacBeth, all that was left, then, were
> beasts and best to be king of the beasts. For Lao Tse, the freedom afforded
> by the same realization was to be explored more fully. For me, much of the
> 'meaning of life' is in making things with and/or for others, though I am
> rarely very good at collaboration in art.
>

I agree; I'm on the Lao Tse end of things myself.

- Alan