Back to AtD Reimann maths ain't life. p.891
Paul Mackin
mackin.paul at verizon.net
Sun Jun 10 05:18:38 CDT 2012
On 6/9/2012 10:14 PM, Prashant Kumar wrote:
> The mathematical universe hypothesis is interesting in the abstract,
> but viewing it from the perspective of a physicist, it's not all that
> useful. Even in Tegmark's original paper I don't think the
> implications are that compelling. The universe is self-aware maths.
> Ok, so what then? Not everything predicted by theory is found in
> physical systems; this is why the discovery of a new particle or
> somesuch is such a big event.
>
> And you run into all kinds of problems, not least of which being the
> existence of quanta. Why should the universe be discrete? A more
> interesting piece of crackpottery, I find, is the idea of the universe
> being a simulation. If you argue it just right, you can construe
> certain parts of quantum mechanics as indicative of some sort of
> computer program; a simulation. If I'm modeling something
> computationally, the first thing is to consider the problem
> discretely, by chopping up time and distance etc into quanta. Quantum
> uncertainty would correspond to the machine precision of the
> 'computer'. I might also set a maximum speed, to prevent infinities.
> Now, this is easy enough to pick apart with advanced quantum field
> theory, but I find it compelling nonetheless.
Thanks, Prashant. Thinking about the nature of the
universe--crackpottery or no--is enough to make one's head swim.
P
>
> Prashant
>
> On 5 June 2012 02:41, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> On 6/4/2012 11:17 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>
> Paul writes:
> "Interesting to know. There's also that Platonic idea is
> actually REAL,
> Godel-complete math that is, and that as it becomes self aware it
> perceives itself as a physical reality.
> !! Where do you source this? I ask because I JUST READ that notion
> in an early chapter of The Glass Bead Game, pointed to slant
> from a
> non-plister who attributed it to Turing?? That is, the
> self-awareness
> concept.
> And, for the breadth of this discussion, I can add: later
> Wittgenstein
> argued
> that EVEN mathematics was humanly-created as a 'form of life'
> so to use
> his key concept, nothing in math, not numbers, addition, etc. was
> Platonic....(Witt was very anti-Platonic and his Remarks on
> Mathematics
> very disputedly controversial).
> and we know TRP read and used SOME Wittgenstein elsewhere.
>
>
> See Prashant's reply concerning the possibility. He would go along
> with Witt I imagine.
>
> I was referring to the mathematical universe hypothesis, but
> probably described it slipshodly.
>
> Wasn't Turing talking about machine self awareness?
>
> Math self awareness would seem to be a quantum leap beyond.
>
> If this has any meaning at all, I'd like to hear from Preshant on it.
>
> P
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>>
> *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 4, 2012 10:52 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Back to AtD Reimann maths ain't life. p.891
>
> On 6/3/2012 10:54 PM, Prashant Kumar wrote:
> > "Y certainly had an inflated idea of what you can do with
> math. Still
> > there's a lot you CAN do with it. Once she realized this
> she would have
> > been very good."
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean here. The idea she suggests to
> Riemann in his
> > lecture was, for a while, the basis of many attempts to
> prove the
> > Riemann hypothesis.
>
> I didn't mean THAT idea.
> >
> > "Math is an advanced form of rationality. Rationality is an
> evolutionary
> > adaptation. As such it is a practical tool, not some
> Platonic ideal. It
> > doesn't have to make perfect sense. Goedel and all that. "
> >
> > The way mathematical ability evolved in humans doesn't
> necessarily imply
> > anything about the extent of its utility. Mathematics is
> more than just
> > rationality, it is logical abstraction as well. It does
> have to make
> > perfect sense. Goedel's incompleteness theorems dictate the
> properties
> > of certain formal logical systems, like predicate logic for
> example. It
> > doesn't have much bearing on most of the rest of maths,
> despite popular
> > assertions to the contrary.
>
> Interesting to know. There's also that Platonic idea is
> actually REAL,
> Godel-complete math that is, and that as it becomes self aware it
> perceives itself as a physical reality.
>
> >
> > Prashant
> >
> > On 4 June 2012 00:56, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>>
> > <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>>>> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/3/2012 10:21 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> >
> > Paul Mackin writes:
> > The issue from the Cyprian/Yashmeen/Reef trio needs to have
> more
> > significance than merely perpetuating the species, as important
> > as that
> > is. Her snatching from the world of brilliance requires
> some higher
> > order purpose if this section of the book is to be saved.
> > The Holy Family thing obviously has big holes in it, but I
> can't
> > at the
> > moment think of anything better.
> > At one point, Ljubica puts flowers in a gun
> barrel.......part of
> > TRP's
> > sixties images and themes? ( a little groan-worthy by now?)
> >
> >
> > Maybe it was let a hundred flowers blossom. Naw.
> >
> >
> >
> > And, re maths......I think that Yashmeen giving up higher
> math is
> > part of TRP's book-length general satirization of the uses
> of math
> > in the modern world.......
> >
> >
> > Y certainly had an inflated idea of what you can do with
> math. Still
> > there's a lot you CAN do with it. Once she realized this
> she would
> > have been very good.
> >
> >
> >
> > From Plato thru "mad Dog' Russell, mathematicians talk of the
> > abstraction
> > that is mathematics and abstraction links with the daylit
> > fictions, the
> > balloon,
> > the bloviations of most in AtD, I would argue.
> > And, we don't live in the world of mathematics, we live in the
> > world of
> > children's sensations, I think TRP puts out there
> thematically---
> > & he also might have gotten related notions from McLuhan......
> >
> >
> > Math is an advanced form of rationality. Rationality is an
> > evolutionary adaptation. As such it is a practical tool,
> not some
> > Platonic ideal. It doesn't have to make perfect sense.
> Goedel and
> > all that.
> >
> > P
> >
> >
> > *From:* Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>>
> > <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>>>>
>
> > *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>
> <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>>
> <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>
> <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>>>
>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:49 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Back to AtD Reimann maths ain't life. p.891
> >
> >
> > On 6/2/2012 11:46 AM, Michael Bailey wrote:
> > > Paul Mackin wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alice knows. What we are witnessing in the foundation of the
> > Holy Family
> > >> Traverse in which Yashmeen is to become the mother of the
> > baby Jes .
> > . . .
> > >> And a good deal of purple prose is necessary get this
> > across, make it
> > >> sufficiently portentous.
> > >
> > > Yes, Paul, I tend to forget that there are more levels to
> > this than
> > > the feminist angle I was focusing on.
> > > The Holy Family stuff with Cyps and Reef and Yashmeen, I got
> > to admit,
> > > slides by me largely unappreciated.
> > >
> > > It reminds me of that prison family stuff that the
> > late-capitalist
> > > pearl girl in IV talks about...
> > >
> > > You go into the pages of history with the personnel you have,
> > not the
> > > personnel that you might want to have.
> > >
> > > The symbolism of the eagle is broader than just the "oh no,
> > Yashmeen's
> > > about to get predated into family life"
> > > The eagle's diet is the ground-dwelling vermin and compared
> > to making
> > > a family, I suppose that any commercial or intellectual
> > occupation
> > > makes of one by comparison a rat, a shrew, or a vole -- I
> guess
> > > that's why they play Mack the Knife at wedding receptions...
> > >
> > > This is where my viewpont re-converges with Mark's: yes,
> > ultimately
> > > the continuance of the species is more important than
> whatever
> > > individual accomplishments one might have wanted to see from
> > Yashmeen.
> > > She did, after, make that anonymous contribution in Professor
> > > Hilbert's class, and how many of us get to make even an
> anonymous
> > > contribution -- things are tough all over, we're all
> riding that
> > > Ferris Wheel and all you might be offered is a bite of
> > jellied eel...
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > The issue from the Cyprian/Yashmeen/Reef trio needs to have
> more
> > significance than merely perpetuating the species, as important
> > as that
> > is. Her snatching from the world of brilliance requires
> some higher
> > order purpose if this section of the book is to be saved.
> >
> >
> > The Holy Family thing obviously has big holes in it, but I
> can't
> > at the
> > moment think of anything better.
> >
> > P
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120610/c063e813/attachment.html>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list