The Earth is Flat

04 Apr 2022 03:58 - 17 Jun 2023 08:29
Open in Logseq
    • Philosophy is written in this great book that is continually open before our eyes (I say the universe), but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to understand the language, and to know the characters, in which it is written. He is written in mathematical language, and the characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is impossible humanly to understand a word of them; without these it is a vain wandering through a dark labyrinth.
      • – Galileo,
      • On the one hand you have the vast complex Universe, on the other hand you have slightly evolved monkey brains that have only recently figured out how to use tools and communicate using speech. The idea that these brains could produce and store a model of the Universe is preposterous.
      • Oh interesting:
      • A quantum system is an alien entity that does not fit our preconceived notions, and the main characteristic that distinguishes it from classical phenomena is that it’s not composable. If quantum phenomena were composable in some other way, different from particles or waves, we could probably internalize it. But non-composable phenomena are totally alien to our way of thinking.
      • There is one property of all of mathematics that is really striking, and it’s most clearly visible in foundational theories, such as logic, category theory, and lambda calculus. All these theories are about composability. They all describe how to construct more complex things from simpler elements.
      • In fact it can be shown that constructive logic, cartesian closed categories, and typed lambda calculus are three different formulations of the same theory. This is known as the Curry Howard Lambek isomorphism. We’ve been discovering the same thing over and over again.
        • Wow that sounds good to know.
        • We are still way ahead of neural networks in our capacity to create abstractions. But it’s possible that, at some point, they’ll catch up with us. The problem is: Will we be able to understand machine-generated abstractions? We are already at the limits of understanding human-generated abstractions.
    • Second pass

      • mathematical vs physical theory – Platonism – the Occam's Razor supposition
      • Physical discoveries have a very different character than mathematical discoveries. Laws of physics are testable against physical reality. We perform experiments in the real world and if the results contradict a theory, we discard the theory. A mathematical theory, on the other hand, can only be tested against itself. We discard a theory when it leads to internal contradictions. The belief that mathematics is discovered rather than invented has its roots in Platonism. When we say that the Earth is spherical, we are talking about the idea of a sphere. According to Plato, these ideas do exist independently of the observer — in this case, a mathematician who studies them. Most mathematicians are Platonists, whether they admit it or not.
      • Composability argument hit me again. Waves and particles are composable; quantum systems aren't, and our brains can't deal with that. (I'm not sure what he really means by that)
      • It’s possible that composability is the fundamental property of the Universe, which would make it comprehensible to us humans, ... Personally, I’m very reluctant to accept this point of view, because it would give intelligent life a special place in the grand scheme of things. It’s as if the laws of the Universe were created in such a way as to be accessible to the brains of the evolved monkeys that we are.
      • It’s much more likely that mathematics describes the ways our brains are capable of composing simpler things into more complex systems. Anything that we can comprehend using our brains must, by necessity, be decomposable — and there are only so many ways of putting things together. Discovering mathematics means discovering the structure of our brains. Platonic ideals exist only as patterns of connections between neurons.
      • When you see a tiger, you don’t decompose the image into individual parts, analyze them, and put together a model of a tiger. Image recognition is one of these areas where the analytic approach fails miserably. People tried to write programs that would recognize faces using separate subroutines to detect eyes, noses, lips, ears, etc., and composing them together, but they failed. And yet we instinctively recognize faces of familiar people at a glance.
      • OK, that seems very confused. A neural net does decompose images into parts (features), although its not a conscious deliberate process.
      • There is no guarantee, however, that the Universe is decomposable. Assuming that would be tantamount to postulating that its structure revolves around human brains, just like we used to believe that the Universe revolves around Earth.
    • This is thought provoking, not sure how much I agree with it. I'd interpret the facts slightly differently – the universe has structure that we can comprehend, and structure we can't (so it appears functionally identical to chaos).