Back to AtD Reimann maths ain't life. p.891

Paul Mackin mackin.paul at verizon.net
Sun Jun 10 09:26:47 CDT 2012


On 6/10/2012 7:38 AM, Prashant Kumar wrote:
> I use the term affectionately. Everything was once crackpottery.

I understand.

It's good that we  have a resident physicist--things that come up 
reading Pynchon being as they are.

P
>
> prashant
>
> On 10 June 2012 20:18, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net 
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>     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/20120610/8c6b9f66/attachment.html>


More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list