Penrose proved that a computational or formalizable theory of the brainís cognitive functioning is impossible, but suggested that a physical non-computational and non-formalizable one may be viable. Arguments as to why Penroseís program is unrealizable are presented. The main argument is that a non-formalizable theory should be verbal. However, verbal paradoxes based on Cantorís diagonal processes show the impossibility of a consistent verbal theory of the brain comprising its arithmetical cognition. It is suggested that comprehensive theories of the human brain (...) and of physical experience are Kantian rather than Platonic ideas. This suggestion is likewise based on arguments related to diagonal processes. (shrink)

This accessible book gives a new, detailed and elementary explanation of the Gödel incompleteness theorems and presents the Chaitin results and their relation to the da Costa-Doria results, which are given in full, but with no ...

In “Minds, Machines, and Gödel”, J. R. Lucas claims that Goedel's incompleteness theorem constitutes a proof “that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines”. He claims further that “if the proof of the falsity of mechanism is valid, it is of the greatest consequence for the whole of philosophy”. It seems to me that both of these claims are exaggerated. It is true that no minds can be explained as machines. But it is (...) not true that Goedel's theorem proves this. At most, Goedel's theorem proves that not all minds can be explained as machines. Since this is so, Goedel's theorem cannot be expected to throw much light on why minds are different from machines. Lucas overestimates the importance of Goedel's theorem for the topic of mechanism, I believe, because he presumes falsely that being unable to follow any but mechanical procedures in mathematics makes something a machine. (shrink)

Gödel's Theorem is often used in arguments against machine intelligence, suggesting humans are not bound by the rules of any formal system. However, Gödelian arguments can be used to support AI, provided we extend our notion of computation to include devices incorporating random number generators. A complete description scheme can be given for integer functions, by which nonalgorithmic functions are shown to be partly random. Not being restricted to algorithms can be accounted for by the availability of an (...) arbitrary random function. Humans, then, might not be rule-bound, but Gödelian arguments also suggest how the relevant sort of nonalgorithmicity may be trivially made available to machines. (shrink)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) defines melancholia as “A mental state characterized by very severe depressi...

The Jewish religious tradition summons its adherents to save life. For religious Jews preservation of life is the ultimate religious commandment. At the same time Jewish law recognizes that the agony of a moribund person may not be stretched. When the time to die has come this has to be respected. The process of dying should not needlessly be prolonged. We discuss the position of two prominent Orthodox Jewish authorities – the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi J David Bleich (...) – towards the role of life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life care. From the review, the characteristic halachic and heterogeneous character of Jewish ethical reasoning appears. The specificity of Jewish dealing with ethical dilemmas in health care indicates the importance for contemporary healthcare professionals of providing care which is sensitive to a patient’s culture and worldview. (shrink)

Information?rich environments are created to promote data use in schools for the purpose of self?evaluation and quality assurance. However, providing feedback does not guarantee that schools will actually put it to use. One of the main stumbling blocks relates to the interpretation and diagnosis of the information. This study examines the relationship between data literacy competences, support given in interpreting the information, actual use of the feedback and potential school improvement effect. A randomised field experiment with 188 school principals from (...) primary education was set up and a post?test was used to investigate the effects of a support initiative. The results revealed that a minority of schools invested significantly in the interpretation and diagnosis of the school performance feedback (SPF), despite the fact that most of the respondents showed an interest in the SPF report. In addition, data competence support and the subsequent use of feedback were found to be limited. (shrink)

SummaryJ.R. Lucas has argued that it follows from Godel's Theorem that the mind cannot be a machine or represented by any formal system. Although this notorious argument against the mechanism thesis has received considerable attention in the literature, it has not been decisively rebutted, even though mechanism is generally thought to be the only plausible view of the mind. In this paper I offer an analysis of Lucas's argument which shows that it derives its persuasiveness from a subtle confusion. (...) In particular, I examine Benacerraf's reconstruction of Lucas's argument, thereby permitting a precise re‐statement of my own analysis and reinforcement of my conclusions regarding Lucas's mistake. This examination of Benacerraf's reconstruction permits us to evaluate certain radical and highly paradoxical conclusions concerning empirical psychology which Benacerraf draws, and this, in turn, permits us to consider certain suggestive implications for the mind which may, after all, follow from Godel's Theorem.RésuméJ.R. Lucas a dérivé du théorème de Gödel la conclusion que ľesprit ne peut pas être une machine ou être représenté par un systeme formel. Bien que cet argument célèbre contre la thése du mécanisme ait éveillé un interêt considérable dans la littérature, il ňa pas été réfuté de façon décisive, même si ľopinion générate prévaut que le mécanisme est la seule conception possible de ľesprit. Dans cet article, je propose une analyse du raisonnement de Lucas qui montre que sa force persuasive provient ?on;une subtile confusion. En particulier, j'examine la reconstruction, par Benacerraf, de la démonstration de Lucas, ce qui me pérmet de préciser ma propre analyse et de confirmer mes conclusions quant àľerreur de Lucas. Cet examen de la reconstruction de Benacerraf nous fournit ľoccasion de discuter certaines conclusions radicales et hautement paradoxals qu'il en tire concernant la psychologie expérimentale et nous conduit à certaines implications suggestives concernant ľesprit et qui pourraient finalement decouler du théorème de Gödel.ZusammenfassungJ.R. Lucas hat argumentiert, aus Gödels Theorem mUsse folgen, dass der menschliche Geist keine Maschine sein oder durch ein formales System dargestellt werden kann. Obschon dieses bekannte Argument gegen die mechanistische These in der Literatur beträchtliche Beachtung gefunden hat, ist es bisher noch nie eigentlich widerlegt worden, obgleich eine mechanistische Betrachtungsweise allgemein als die einzig plausible gilt. In dieser Arbeit biete ich eine Analyse von Lucas Argument an, die zeigen soil, dass seine Überzeugungskraft auf einer subtilen Konfusion beruht. Im besonderen untersuche ich Benacerrafs Rekonstruktion des Arguments, was rnirerlaubt, meine eigene Analyse in genauer Weise zu formulieren und meine Schlussfolgerung bezüglich des von Lucas gemachten Fehlers zu erharten. Diese Untersuchung von Benacerrafs Rekonstruktion ermöglicht es, gewisse radikale und im höchsten Grad paradoxe Schlüsse, die Benacerraf hinsichtlich der empirischen Psychologie zieht, zu beurteilen. Das wiederum erlaubt uns, gewisse den Geist betreffende Implikationen zu erörtern, die tatsächlich aus Gödels Theorem folgen kUnnten. (shrink)

My purpose in this brief paper is to consider the implications of a radically different computer architecure to some fundamental problems in the foundations of Cognitive Science. More exactly, I wish to consider the ramifications of the 'Gödel-Minds-Machines' controversy of the late 1960s on a dynamically changing computer architecture which, I venture to suggest, is going to revolutionize which 'functions' of the human mind can and cannot be modelled by (non-human) computational automata. I will proceed on the presupposition that (...) the reader is familiar with some of the fundamentals of computational theory and mathematical logic. (shrink)

"The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose has received a great deal of both praise and criticism. This review discusses philosophical aspects of the book that form an attack on the "strong" AI thesis. Eight different versions of this thesis are distinguished, and sources of ambiguity diagnosed, including different requirements for relationships between program and behaviour. Excessively strong versions attacked by Penrose (and Searle) are not worth defending or attacking, whereas weaker versions remain problematic. Penrose (like Searle) regards the notion (...) of an algorithm as central to AI, whereas it is argued here that for the purpose of explaining mental capabilities the architecture of an intelligent system is more important than the concept of an algorithm, using the premise that what makes something intelligent is not what it does but how it does it. What needs to be explained is also unclear: Penrose thinks we all know what consciousness is and claims that the ability to judge Go "del's formula to be true depends on it. He also suggests that quantum phenomena underly consciousness. This is rebutted by arguing that our existing concept of "consciousness" is too vague and muddled to be of use in science. This and related concepts will gradually be replaced by a more powerful theory-based taxonomy of types of mental states and processes. The central argument offered by Penrose against the strong AI thesis depends on a tempting but unjustified interpretation of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. Some critics are shown to have missed the point of his argument. A stronger criticism is mounted, and the relevance of mathematical Platonism analysed. Architectural requirements for intelligence are discussed and differences between serial and parallel implementations analysed. (shrink)

A review of Hao Wang's Reflections on Kurt Goedel, emphasising Goedel's reaction against his Vienna Circle background.

Gödei's Theorem seems to me to prove that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines. So also has it seemed to many other people: almost every mathematical logician I have put the matter to has confessed to similar thoughts, but has felt reluctant to commit himself definitely until he could see the whole argument set out, with all objections fully stated and properly met. This I attempt to do.

This junior/senior level text is devoted to a study of first-order logic and its role in the foundations of mathematics: What is a proof? How can a proof be justified? To what extent can a proof be made a purely mechanical procedure? How much faith can we have in a proof that is so complex that no one can follow it through in a lifetime? The first substantial answers to these questions have only been obtained in this century. The most (...) striking results are contained in Goedel's work: First, it is possible to give a simple set of rules that suffice to carry out all mathematical proofs; but, second, these rules are necessarily incomplete - it is impossible, for example, to prove all true statements of arithmetic. The book begins with an introduction to first-order logic, Goedel's theorem, and model theory. A second part covers extensions of first-order logic and limitations of the formal methods. The book covers several advanced topics, not commonly treated in introductory texts, such as Trachtenbrot's undecidability theorem. Fraissé's elementary equivalence, and Lindstroem's theorem on the maximality of first-order logic. (shrink)

This paper develops in certain directions the work of Meyer in [3], [4], [5] and [6]. In those works, Peano’s axioms for arithmetic were formulated with a logical base of the relevant logic R, and it was proved finitistically that the resulting arithmetic, called R♯, was absolutely consistent. It was pointed out that such a result escapes incau- tious formulations of Goedel’s second incompleteness theorem, and provides a basis for a revived Hilbert programme. The absolute consistency result used as (...) a model arithmetic modulo two. Modulo arithmetics are not or- dinarily thought of as an extension of Peano arithmetic, since some of the propositions of the latter, such as that zero is the successor of no number, fail in the former. Consequently a logical base which, unlike classical logic, tolerates contradictory theories was used for the model. The logical base for the model was the three-valued logic RM3, which has the advantage that while it is an extension of R, it is finite valued and so easier to handle. The resulting model-theoretic structure is interesting in its own right in that the set of sentences true therein consti- tutes a negation inconsistent but absolutely consistent arithmetic which is an extension of R♯. In fact, in the light of the result of [6], it is an extension of Peano arithmetic with a base of a classical logic, P♯. A generalisation of the structure is to modulo arithmetics with the same logical base RM3, but with varying moduli. We first study the properties of these arithmetics in this paper. The study is then generalised by vary- ing the logical base, to give the arithmetics RMni, of logical base RMn and modulus i. Not all of these exist, however, as arithmetical properties and logical properties interact, as we will show. The arithmetics RMni give rise, on intersection, to an inconsistent arithmetic RMω which is not of modulo i for any i. We also study its properties, and, among other results, we show by finitistic means that the more natural relevant arithmetics R♯ and R♯♯ are incomplete. In the rest of the paper we apply these techniques to several topics, particularly relevant quantum arithmetic in which we are able to show that the law of distribution remains unprovable. Aside from its intrinsic interest, we regard the present exercise as a demonstration that inconsistent theories and models are of mathematical worth and interest. (shrink)

This paper offers an elementary proof that formal arithmetic is consistent. The system that will be proved consistent is a first-order theory R♯, based as usual on the Peano postulates and the recursion equations for + and ×. However, the reasoning will apply to any axiomatizable extension of R♯ got by adding classical arithmetical truths. Moreover, it will continue to apply through a large range of variation of the un- derlying logic of R♯, while on a simple and straightforward translation, (...) the classical first-order theory P♯ of Peano arithmetic turns out to be an exact subsystem of R♯. Since the reasoning is elementary, it is formalizable within R♯ itself; i.e., we can actually demonstrate within R♯ (or within P♯, if we care) a statement that, in a natural fashion, asserts the consistency of R♯ itself. The reader is unlikely to have missed the significance of the remarks just made. In plain English, this paper repeals Goedel’s famous second theorem. (That’s the one that asserts that sufficiently strong systems are inadequate to demonstrate their own consistency.) That theorem (or at least the significance usually claimed for it) was a mis- take—a subtle and understandable mistake, perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless. Accordingly, this paper reinstates the formal program which is often taken to have been blasted away by Goedel’s theorems— namely, the Hilbert program of demonstrating, by methods that everybody can recognize as effective and finitary, that intuitive mathematics is reliable. Indeed, the present consistency proof for arithmetic will be recognized as correct by anyone who can count to 3. (So much, indeed, for the claim that the reliability of arithmetic rests on transfinite induction up to ε0, and for the incredible mythology that underlies it.). (shrink)

Einsteinian gravity, of which Newtonian gravity is a part, is fraught with the problem of singularity that has been established as a theorem by Hawking and Penrose. The _hypothesis_ that founds the basis of both Einsteinian and Newtonian theories of gravity is that bodies with unequal magnitudes of masses fall with the same acceleration under the gravity of a source object. Since, the Einstein’s equations is one of the assumptions that underlies the proof of the singularity theorem, therefore, (...) the above hypothesis is implicitly one of the founding pillars of the same. In this work, I demonstrate how one can possibly write a non-singular theory of gravity which manifests that the above mentioned hypothesis is only valid in an approximate sense in the “large distance” scenario. To mention a specific instance, under the gravity of the earth, a 5 kg and a 500 kg fall with accelerations which differ by approximately \(113.148\times 10^{-32}\) meter/sec \(^2\) and the more massive object falls with less acceleration. Further, I demonstrate why the concept of gravitational field is not definable in the “small distance” regime which automatically justifies why the Einstein’s and Newton’s theories fail to provide any “small distance” analysis. In course of writing down this theory, I demonstrate why the continuum hypothesis as spelled out by Goedel, is undecidable. The theory has several aspects which provide the following realizations: (i) Descartes’ self-skepticism concerning exact representation of numbers by drawing lines (ii) Born’s wish of taking into account “natural uncertainty in all observations” while describing “a physical situation” by means of “real numbers” (iii) Klein’s vision of having “a fusion of arithmetic and geometry” where “a point is replaced by a small spot” (iv) Goedel’s assertion about “non-standard analysis, in some version” being “the analysis of the future”. (shrink)

Leibniz entertained the idea that, as a set of “striving possibles” competes for existence, the largest and most perfect world comes into being. The paper proposes 8 criteria for a Leibniz-world. It argues that a) there is no algorithm e.g., one involving pairwise compossibility-testing that can produce even possible Leibniz-worlds; b) individual substances presuppose completed worlds; c) the uniqueness of the actual world is a matter of theological preference, not an outcome of the assembly-process; and d) Goedel’s theorem implies (...) that there can be no algorithm for producing optimal worlds, assuming an optimal world contains truth-discerning creatures, though this is not to say that such worlds cannot arise naturally. (shrink)

Leibniz entertained the idea that, as a set of “striving possibles” competes for existence, the largest and most perfect world comes into being. The paper proposes 8 criteria for a Leibniz-world. It argues that a) there is no algorithm e.g., one involving pairwise compossibility-testing that can produce even possible Leibniz-worlds; b) individual substances presuppose completed worlds; c) the uniqueness of the actual world is a matter of theological preference, not an outcome of the assembly-process; and d) Goedel’s theorem implies (...) that there can be no algorithm for producing optimal worlds, assuming an optimal world contains truth-discerning creatures, though this is not to say that such worlds cannot arise naturally. (shrink)

The volume contains twenty essays devoted to the philosophy of mathematics and the history of logic. They have been divided into four parts: general philosophical problems of mathematics, Hilbert's program vs. the incompleteness phenomenon, philosophy of mathematics in Poland, mathematical logic in Poland. Among considered problems are: epistemology of mathematics, the meaning of the axiomatic method, existence of mathematical objects, distinction between proof and truth, undefinability of truth, Goedel's theorems and computer science, philosophy of mathematics in Polish mathematical and logical (...) schools, beginnings of mathematical logic in Poland, contribution of Polish logicians to recursion theory. (shrink)

In The Consistency of Arithmetic and elsewhere, Meyer claims to “repeal” Goedel’s second incompleteness theorem. In this paper, I review his argument, and then consider two ways of understanding it: from the perspective of mathematical pluralism and monism, respectively. Is relevant arithmetic just another legitimate practice among many, or is it a rival of its classical counterpart—a corrective to Goedel, setting us back on the path to the (One) True Arithmetic? To help answer, I sketch a few worked examples (...) from relevant mathematics, to see what a non-classical (re)formulation of mathematics might look like in practice. I conclude that, while it is unlikely that relevant arithmetic describes past and present mathematical practice, and so might be most acceptable as a pluralist enterprise, it may yet prescribe a more monistic future venture. (shrink)

This paper develops in certain directions the work of Meyer in [3], [4], [5] and [6] (see also Routley [10] and Asenjo [11]). In those works, Peano’s axioms for arithmetic were formulated with a logical base of the relevant logic R, and it was proved finitistically that the resulting arithmetic, called R♯, was absolutely consistent. It was pointed out that such a result escapes incau- tious formulations of Goedel’s second incompleteness theorem, and provides a basis for a revived Hilbert (...) programme. The absolute consistency result used as a model arithmetic modulo two. Modulo arithmetics are not or- dinarily thought of as an extension of Peano arithmetic, since some of the propositions of the latter, such as that zero is the successor of no number, fail in the former. Consequently a logical base which, unlike classical logic, tolerates contradictory theories was used for the model. The logical base for the model was the three-valued logic RM3 (see e.g. [1] or [8]), which has the advantage that while it is an extension of R, it is finite valued and so easier to handle. The resulting model-theoretic structure (called in this paper RM32) is interesting in its own right in that the set of sentences true therein consti- tutes a negation inconsistent but absolutely consistent arithmetic which is an extension of R♯. In fact, in the light of the result of [6], it is an extension of Peano arithmetic with a base of a classical logic, P♯. A generalisation of the structure is to modulo arithmetics with the same logical base RM3, but with varying moduli (called RM3i here). We first study the properties of these arithmetics in this paper. The study is then generalised by vary- ing the logical base, to give the arithmetics RMni, of logical base RMn and modulus i. Not all of these exist, however, as arithmetical properties and logical properties interact, as we will show. The arithmetics RMni give rise, on intersection, to an inconsistent arithmetic RMω which is not of modulo i for any i. We also study its properties, and, among other results, we show by finitistic means that the more natural relevant arithmetics R♯ and R♯♯ are incomplete (whether or not consistent and recursively enumerable). In the rest of the paper we apply these techniques to several topics, particularly relevant quantum arithmetic in which we are able to show (unlike classical quantum arithmetic) that the law of distribution remains unprovable. Aside from its intrinsic interest, we regard the present exercise as a demonstration that inconsistent theories and models are of mathematical worth and interest. (shrink)

The focus of this paper is on two attempts Sainati made to renew neo-idealistic themes by means of suggestions drawn from the famous Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorems of 1931. Sainati’s remarks on the relationship between «logo astratto » and «logo concreto» are here pursued by reference to some of Goedel’s unpublished texts.

We give some lectures on the work on formal logic of Jacques Herbrand, and sketch his life and his influence on automated theorem proving. The intended audience ranges from students interested in logic over historians to logicians. Besides the well-known correction of Herbrand’s False Lemma by Goedel and Dreben, we also present the hardly known unpublished correction of Heijenoort and its consequences on Herbrand’s Modus Ponens Elimination. Besides Herbrand’s Fundamental Theorem and its relation to the Loewenheim-Skolem-Theorem, we (...) carefully investigate Herbrand’s notion of intuitionism in connection with his notion of falsehood in an infinite domain. We sketch Herbrand’s two proofs of the consistency of arithmetic and his notion of a recursive function, and last but not least, present the correct original text of his unification algorithm with a new translation. (shrink)

According to the received view, formalism – interpreted as the thesis that mathematical truth does not outrun the consequences of our maximal mathematical theory – has been refuted by Goedel's theorem. In support of this claim, proponents of the received view usually invoke an informal argument for the truth of the Goedel sentence, an argument which is supposed to reconstruct our reasoning in seeing its truth. Against this, Field has argued in a series of papers that the principles involved (...) in this argument – when applied to our maximal mathematical theory – are unsound. This paper defends the received view by showing that there is a way of seeing the truth of the Goedel sentence which is immune to Field's strategy. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the comparison of two types of proofs in mathematical practice, the methodological differences of which go back to the difference in the understanding of the nature of mathematics by Descartes and Leibniz. In modern philosophy of mathematics, we talk about conceptual and formal proofs in connection with the so-called Hilbert Thesis, according to which every proof can be transformed into a logical conclusion in a suitable formal system. The analysis of the arguments of the proponents (...) and opponents of the Thesis, “conceptualists” and “formalists”, is presented respectively by the two main antagonists – Y. Rav and J. Azzouni. The focus is on the possibility of reproducing the proof of “interesting” mathematical theorems in the form of a strict logical conclusion, in principle feasible by a mechanical procedure. The argument of conceptualists is based on pointing out the importance of other aspects of the proof besides the logical conclusion, namely, in introducing new concepts, methods, and establishing connections between different sections of meaningful mathematics, which is often illustrated by the case of proving Fermat’s Last Theorem (Y. Rav). Formalists say that a conceptual proof “points” to the formal logical structure of the proof (J. Azzouni). The article shows that the disagreement is based on the assumption of asymmetry of mutual translation of syntactic and semantic structures of the language, as a result of which the formal proof loses important semantic factors of proof. In favor of a formal proof, the program of univalent foundations of mathematics In. Vojevodski, according to which the future of mathematical proofs is associated with the availability of computer verification programs. In favor of conceptual proofs, it is stated (A. Pelc) that the number of steps in the supposed formal logical conclusion when proving an “interesting” theorem exceeds the cognitive abilities of a person. The latter circumstance leads the controversy beyond the actual topic of mathematical proof into the epistemological sphere of discussions of “mentalists” and “mechanists” on the question of the supposed superiority of human intelligence over the machine, initiated by R. Penrose in his interpretation of the Second Theorem of Goedel, among whose supporters, as it turned out, was Goedel himself. (shrink)

In this paper we analyze methodological and philosophical implications of algorithmic aspects of unconventional computation. At first, we describe how the classical algorithmic universe developed and analyze why it became closed in the conventional approach to computation. Then we explain how new models of algorithms turned the classical closed algorithmic universe into the open world of algorithmic constellations, allowing higher flexibility and expressive power, supporting constructivism and creativity in mathematical modeling. As Goedels undecidability theorems demonstrate, the closed algorithmic universe restricts (...) essential forms of mathematical cognition. In contrast, the open algorithmic universe, and even more the open world of algorithmic constellations, remove such restrictions and enable new, richer understanding of computation. (shrink)

PROFESSOR LEWIS 1 and Professor Coder 2 criticize my use of Gödel's theorem to refute Mechanism. 3 Their criticisms are valuable. In order to meet them I need to show more clearly both what the tactic of my argument is at one crucial point and the general aim of the whole manoeuvre.

In Philosophy for April 1961 Mr J. R. Lucas argues that Gödel's theorem proves that Mechanism is false. I wish to dispute this view, not because I maintain that Mechanism is true, but because I do not believe that this issue is to be settled by what looks rather like a kind of logical conjuring-trick. In my discussion I take for granted Lucas's account of Gödel's procedure, which I am not competent to criticise.

Roger Penrose is justly famous for his work in physics and mathematics but he is _notorious_ for his endorsement of the Gödel argument (see his 1989, 1994, 1997). This argument, first advanced by J. R. Lucas (in 1961), attempts to show that Gödel’s (first) incompleteness theorem can be seen to reveal that the human mind transcends all algorithmic models of it¹. Penrose's version of the argument has been seen to fall victim to the original objections raised against (...) Lucas (see Boolos (1990) and for a particularly intemperate review, Putnam (1994)). Yet I believe that more can and should be said about the argument. Only a brief review is necessary here although I wish to present the argument in a somewhat peculiar form. (shrink)

I Would like to draw attention to the basic defect in the argument used by Mr J. R. Lucas.Mr Lucas there states that Gödel's theorem shows that any consistent formal system strong enough to produce arithmetic fails to prove, within its own structure, theorems that we, as humans, can nevertheless see to be true. From this he argues that ‘minds’ can do more than machines, since machines are essentially formal systems of this same type, and subject to the (...) limitation implied by Godel's theorem. (shrink)

We propose that the sudden emergence of metazoans during the Cambrian was due to the appearance of a complex genome architecture that was capable of computing. In turn, this made defining recursive functions possible. The underlying molecular changes that occurred in tandem were driven by the increased probability of maintaining duplicated DNA fragments in the metazoan genome. In our model, an increase in telomeric units, in conjunction with a telomerase-negative state and consequent telomere shortening, generated a reference point equivalent to (...) a non-reversible counting mechanism. (shrink)

The unity of this study rests on the notion that both statistics and emergence are intimately connected with randomness. A statistical law discovers an ideal frequency from which the actual frequency diverges only randomly i.e. the divergence is not contained in a law. Statistics and randomness, thus, mutually define each other. Emergence is related on the one hand, to regularly recurring events and, on the other hand, to the non-ordered events on one level which may be contained in a higher (...) order law. A discussion of the three linked notions naturally turns to the relations between the sciences and to the relations between the events which are their objects; thus the apparent oddness of a considered subtitle—‘Towards an adequate Weltanschauung’ —is eliminated, for an adequate Weltanschauung for the contemporary philosopher will have to include a position on the interconnexions between sciences. Perhaps the philosopher of science will readily grant this but recent thrusts in the philosophy of art, as well as the clear tendencies of the human sciences indicate that an understanding of these questions is increasingly important. It must be clear, for instance, that no serious comprehensive study of artistic meaning after Langer can afford to neglect utterly the nature of the shift from biological regularity to artistic pattern. I have passed from the unity on the side of the object to a corresponding unity on the side of the subject. For how is one to go about the discovery of the relevant interconnexions. So an earlier title refers to the concrete logic of discovery which itself is discovered not merely—perhaps not at all—by the verbal objectification of a theory but by the actual operations of the discoverer who is reflecting critically on himself. This view on the nature of philosophic enquiry, from which belief as present within the scientific community and essential to the proper development of science, is excluded, guides the form of the expression which continually points away from itself to the crucial experiments which the reader must himself perform. Indicative of this elusiveness is a reference to Goedel which is little more than an indication that at this point in the argument it would be valuable to do some work on the theorem. One may be inclined to cavil at this mode of expression; nevertheless it may be suggested that if philosophy does differ significantly from science it is possible that its proper mode of expression will likewise differ from that of science, and that this mode requires more investigation than it has yet received. Perhaps Wittgenstein is not aphorism at all. (shrink)

Critical study of Michael Potter, Reason's Nearest Kin. Philosophies of Arithmetic from Kant to Carnap. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. x + 305 pages.

Jury theorems are mathematical theorems about the ability of collectives to make correct decisions. Several jury theorems carry the optimistic message that, in suitable circumstances, ‘crowds are wise’: many individuals together (using, for instance, majority voting) tend to make good decisions, outperforming fewer or just one individual. Jury theorems form the technical core of epistemic arguments for democracy, and provide probabilistic tools for reasoning about the epistemic quality of collective decisions. The popularity of jury theorems spans across various disciplines such (...) as economics, political science, philosophy, and computer science. This entry reviews and critically assesses a variety of jury theorems. It first discusses Condorcet's initial jury theorem, and then progressively introduces jury theorems with more appropriate premises and conclusions. It explains the philosophical foundations, and relates jury theorems to diversity, deliberation, shared evidence, shared perspectives, and other phenomena. It finally connects jury theorems to their historical background and to democratic theory, social epistemology, and social choice theory. (shrink)

The Goedelian approach is discussed as a prime example of a science towards the origins. While mere self­referential objectification locks in to its own by­products, self­releasing objectification informs the formation of objects at hand and their different levels of interconnection. Guided by the spirit of Goedel's work a self­reflective science can open the road where old tenets see only blocked paths. “This is, as it were, an analysis of the analysis itself, but if that is done it forms the fundamental (...) of human science, as far as this kind of things is concerned.” G. Leibniz, ('Methodus Nova ...', 1673) . (shrink)

Hawking, in his book, A Brief History of Time, concludes with a conditional remark: If we find a complete theory to explain the physical world, then we will come to understand God’s mind. With Goedel in mind, we can raise questions about the completeness of our scientific understanding and the nature of our understanding with regard to God’s mind. We need to ask about the higher order of our understanding when we move to knowing God’s mind. We go onto develop (...) these problems with Nietzsche’s thoughts on the death of God, and the emergence of super human intelligences. Then, we come to Buddha, a logical genius, to see how the Buddhistic enlightenment exemplifies the super human intelligence, as well as the higher order understanding in our knowledge of God’s mind. (shrink)