By KM
Published Jun 19
13 cards
Grid View
/
This is a published deck. Feel free look around, review cards, or make changes, but you'll need to save it to save your progress.
8.13.0 What is the most important limitation on the knowledge-creation?
1 hidden side
New
8.12.0 “How do all those drastic limitations on what can be known and what can be achieved by mathematics and by computation, including the existence of undecidable questions in mathematics, square with the maxim that problems are soluble?”
1 hidden side
New
8.11.0 Do laws of physics determine whether some mathematical proposition is true or not?
---Yes and no. They don’t determine abstractly whether its true or not: this is a matter of the abstract world. But, for us to prove something as true or not we have to use physical objects, which entirely depends on our laws of physics.
---Yes and no. They don’t determine abstractly whether its true or not: this is a matter of the abstract world. But, for us to prove something as true or not we have to use physical objects, which entirely depends on our laws of physics.
Computation is about representing some abstract phenomena (like numbers) in physical things (like computers). Proving something is about running a physical computation from which we infer things about abstract phenomena, of course, always tentatively. Computer science is the actual ‘proof theory’ of mathematics.
Whether a mathematical proposition is true or not is indeed independent of physics. But the proof of such a proposition is a matter of physics only. There is no such thing as abstractly proving something, just as there is no such thing as abstractly knowing something. Mathematical truth is absolutely necessary and transcendent, but all knowledge is generated by physical processes, and its scope and limitations are conditioned by the laws of nature. One can define a class of abstract entities and call them ‘proofs’ (or computations), just as one can define abstract entities and call them triangles and have them obey Euclidean geometry. But you cannot infer anything from that theory of ‘triangles’ about what angle you will turn through if you walk around a closed path consisting of three straight lines. Nor can those ‘proofs’ do the job of verifying mathematical statements. A mathematical ‘theory of proofs’ has no bearing on which truths can or cannot be proved in reality, or be known in reality; and similarly a theory of abstract ‘computation’ has no bearing on what can or cannot be computed in reality.So, a computation or a proof is a physical process in which objects such as computers or brains physically model or instantiate abstract entities like numbers or equations, and mimic their properties. It is our window on the abstract. It works because we use such entities only in situations where we have good explanations saying that the relevant physical variables in those objects do indeed instantiate those abstract properties.Consequently, the reliability of our knowledge of mathematics remains for ever subsidiary to that of our knowledge of physical reality. Every mathematical proof depends absolutely for its validity on our being right about the rules that govern the behaviour of some physical objects, like computers, or ink and paper, or brains. So, contrary to what Hilbert thought, and contrary to what most mathematicians since antiquity have believed and believe to this day, proof theory can never be made into a branch of mathematics. Proof theory is a science: specifically it is computer science. — page 188
2 hidden sides
New
8.10.0 Does the simplicity and complexity of something depend on laws of physics?
1 hidden side
New
8.9.0 How physical world plays a role of what can be computed or not?
1 hidden side
New
8.8.0 How Immanuel Kant have done a similar mistake to Zeno?
1 hidden side
New
8.7.0 What is the paradox of Zeno of Elea?
5 hidden sides
New
8.6.0 How our understanding of universes and probabilities impacts anthropic reasoning we have discussed in the 4th chapter (trying to solve fine tuning problem)?
3 hidden sides
New
8.5.0 How probabilites work in infinite sets?
1 hidden side
New
8.4.0 What is an infinite regress?
1 hidden side
New
8.3.0 Are some infinities larger than others?
1 hidden side
New
8.2.0 What is the defining property of an infinite set?
1 hidden side
New
8.1.0 What is the idea of the ‘beginning of infinity’?
1 hidden side
New