Tuesday, April 8, 2014
For an Eros of mathematics: So Edward Frenkel prospects. Contrary to him, I don’t prospect that The Universe may be a simulation. I’d love to elaborate (not now, yet...).
I would agree with him (and Leslie Valiant) that continua from mathematical physics into biology and beyond (e.g., human cognition) can be fruitfully modeled (e.g., cognitive computing—a.k.a “AI”). Yet, fulfillment of the Langlands Program (deep-structural homologies between number theory and harmonic analysis—so far beyond my capabilities of comprehension) would leave us still in wonder about the continua of life. They—the high, wondrous prospectors—are far from fruitfully prospecting even the computationality of a regulatory genome in simple life, let alone a neuroscience of such prospecting (e.g., a computational neuroscience of ordinary curiosity). It’ll never happen.
I saw “Particle Fever” last night. Here is the news: We are faced with ultimate undecidability (between supersymmetry and multiversality), we creatures so facing ultimate improbability of there being anything at all, we facing that we are.
We who wonder happily—and We do—are lost to our nature happily, originals of a cosmos, post-Gödelian (conceptually auspicious) beings beyond mathematization.
What a wonder: this planet of life evolving beings who behold It All in which we arose, aspiring to comprehend the nature of this, avowing love for ontomathematics, Of ontomathesis beholding.
... Yet, alas: It is ultimately incomprehensible. It is The Tissue expanding into “Infinity.”
But don’t be frightened. Think of birds—heirs of the dinosaurs, heirs of Time, kinds of planetary intelligence loving to be? We will evolve to move planets around, to suit our fancies in this galaxy.
This posting is associated with the “furthermore” area of gedavis.com.