Bernado's Mathematical Universe

[Squidgers]

I don't assume LNC as an axiom. Process ontology has complex and dynamic relation with contradition. Process ontology does not avoid relativism.

Coherence with empirical facts of computational irreducibility and hence non-determinism does not provide error-free foundation. Which is a good thing, as with ability to make errors comes also ability to experience nice surprises. Fully deterministic universes would be totally uninteresting, and hence not worth living and experiencing. If you like, in that sense non-determinism can be considered also a rational ethical choice by experiencing agents.

This has to be the weakest argument so far as it seems (in the form written here) to be simply saying "just because"?

But I agree with your sentiments of a fully deterministic universe. A compatibilist universe makes more sense, and hence why I think a dual-aspect monism suits better than any undefined "process", or a reductionistic determinism.

Coherence as such is the ethical choice of consensus seeking and communicability between perspectival multinatures.

Is it that your universe is made up of only "perspectival multinatures"? How would you define these?

The self-explanation is the choice to keep on experiencing and learning, evolving and loving.

what exactly is doing the choosing here? what is the mechanism for that choice? (assuming you are talking about the universe as a whole and not human beings)

Perhaps one issue I am still having is that the justifications of the model seem to be coming from within the model. There is no clear journey to take to help one decide how or why these ideas are true from outside the model itself - it is all just assumed first, then it just works.

[Squidgers]

Evolution has a different aim than goodness, power, god, or randomness. Instead, it is symmetry in everything. This forms the beating heart of the universal ‘process’: the active, teleological quest for symmetry.

On the contrary.

I start from symmetry - simply, palindromic strings of formal language - and the teleology is unique differentiation and ethical valuation of our evolution and participatory creation.

Are you talking about symmetry being a kind of foundational aspect of reality here (I'd need a more coherent explanation of what "palindromic strings of formal language" means in this context)? or are simply you meaning in your personal rationalisation of your own model?

[SanteriSatama]

Is it that your universe is made up of only "perspectival multinatures"? How would you define these?

Not mine. Perspectival multinaturalism is an animistic conceptualization by Viveiros de Castro, and can be considered coherent with pluralism of Relational Quantum Mechanich by Rovelli and his recent relational philosophical interpretation of that, in accordance with Nagarjuna's philosophy.

http://film.ncu.edu.tw/word/Exchanging_perspectives.pdf

what exactly is doing the choosing here? what is the mechanism for that choice? (assuming you are talking about the universe as a whole and not human beings)

The choice is made by the love in my heart, as part of the divine universal Love.

Perhaps one issue I am still having is that the justifications of the model seem to be coming from within the model. There is no clear journey to take to help one decide how or why these ideas are true from outside the model itself - it is all just assumed first, then it just works.

It's a confusion to call coherence theory of truth and process ontology a "model", as the term refers to a static structure. Of course we start from being-in-the-world, where else? Assuming external perspective to world is a no-go.

[Squidgers]

Is it that your universe is made up of only "perspectival multinatures"? How would you define these?

Not mine. Perspectival multinaturalism is an animistic conceptualization by Viveiros de Castro, and can be considered coherent with pluralism of Relational Quantum Mechanich by Rovelli and his recent relational philosophical interpretation of that, in accordance with Nagarjuna's philosophy.

http://film.ncu.edu.tw/word/Exchanging_perspectives.pdf

Perspectival multinaturalism, similarly to BK's "cosmic consciousness", can perhaps be argued for as a truth. But there is still a severe lack of rigor to the explanation of what these things are.

to call it "love" is as vague of a notion as you can get.

Saying that, I know exactly what you mean

[SanteriSatama]

Are you talking about symmetry being a kind of foundational aspect of reality here (I'd need a more coherent explanation of what "palindromic strings of formal language" means in this context)? or are simply you meaning in your personal rationalisation of your own model?

Polar symmetries as well as their over/undercomings (Aufhebung) are foundational aspects of phenomenal world, but symmetry can't be stated as the whole story, and certainly not as universal teleology. Coprimes of the reduced forms of rational numbers are unique in relation to each other, and also behave differently, depending whether they are constructed from the foundational principle of nesting (cf. partition), or the foundational principle of repetition (cf. addition). Symmetries and asymmetries form a very complex relational dynamic in and on various contextual and qualitative levels.

In the formal language approach to foundational mathematics I've been working on, palindromic symmetry is a primary syntactic restrictive rule that corresponds with the general notions of 'equation' and 'reversibility'. As such, it's a heuristic device and strategy, not a global axiom. Of course also non-palindromic forms of writing the formal language can and should be investigated.

The formal language is based on relational operators < and >, stress on the word operator, referring to continuous processes which are further qualified by undecidability of Halting problem. In other words, the symbols express potential infinities, not actual and completed infinities.

The most foundational form of the formal language is 'both more and less' <>, open interval which can increase and decrease both internally and externally. Philosophically <> can be defined also as a Bergson-duration. The inverse 'neither more nor less', written ><, corresponds with halting of a process. From the halting, notions of equivalence '=' and static data structures '[]' etc. can be derived and defined.

With the syntactic operation 'concatenate mediants', very interesting structures can be generated, here's 10 rows of generation from the seed < >:
https://geometor.github.io/relop/

With well specified interpretation procedure (I'll spare the details for time being), similar to numerical generation but also much richer Stern-Brocot type structures of rational numbers in their reduced forms are found. The formal language symbolizing continuous processes meets discrete number theory in it's structurally richest and most interesting form from the most simple palindromic generation.

There's much much else, investigation has only started, and introduction article is still very much a WIP.

[Soul_of_Shu]

With the syntactic operation 'concatenate mediants', very interesting structures can be generated, here's 10 rows of generation from the seed < >:
https://geometor.github.io/relop/

With well specified interpretation procedure (I'll spare the details for time being), similar to numerical generation but also much richer Stern-Brocot type structures of rational numbers in their reduced forms are found. The formal language symbolizing continuous processes meets discrete number theory in it's structurally richest and most interesting form from the most simple palindromic generation.

There's much much else, investigation has only started, and introduction article is still very much a WIP.

As you may know Langan's CTMU theory was briefly discussed in the old MS forum, but having just watched a recent interview with him on Curt Jaimungal's TOE channel, I'm wondering what the other mathematically inclined ones here make of it. He also dives deep into "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" and "syntactic self-distribution", as explained in the following passage ...

"The fundamental entity of SCSPL reality is the "syntactic operator", or unit of self-processing information. Because, argues Langan, cognition is just the specific form of information processing that occurs in a mind, information processing can be described as "generalized cognition" and self-processing information as "infocognition". So in the CTMU, reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of one substance (infocognition) with two aspects (information and cognition); space is a configuration of syntactic operators, and time is the activity of these operators as they process themselves and each other.

"The CTMU therefore supports a kind of panpsychism. Although every part of SCSPL has a cognitive aspect, the mental capabilities of a given subsystem depend on its structure. Langan distinguishes three "levels of self-cognition": subordinate, agentive, and global. The lowest of these levels, subordinate, encompasses low-complexity objects such as rocks. In the CTMU, rocks are cognitive in the generalized sense—their molecules interact, thereby processing information—but they do not possess independent volition or any intrinisic ability to optimize their environment.

The next level of self-cognition, which includes humans, is that of agent-level "telors": observer-participants in the ongoing creation of reality. Telors possess independent volition and constructive, creative intelligence or "sentience". In the CTMU, the distributed laws of physics do not fully determine reality; they are supplemented by "meta-laws" created by telors as reality evolves. This ability of telors is constrained by factors including locality, interference, and the probabilistic limits of the laws of physics.

The third and highest level of self-cognition, the global level, is that of reality itself. This level possesses three formal properties of SCSPL: "syntactic self-distribution" (analogous to omnipresence), "perfect autotransductive reflexivity" (analogous to omniscience), and "self-configuration up to freedom" (analogous to omnipotence). Because these are theological attributes, Langan describes reality as "the mind of God". So, claims Langan, because the CTMU constitutes absolute truth—because it is founded on necessary principles and supported by logical and mathematical reasoning—it proves the existence of God."

[ScottRoberts]

As you may know Langan's CTMU theory was briefly discussed in the old MS forum, but having just watched a recent interview with him on Curt Jaimungal's TOE channel, I'm wondering what the other mathematically inclined ones here make of it.

While I would call myself mathematically literate (I know how to read math texts, though I'll get lost quickly if they are above some level of complexity) I would not call myself "mathematically inclined" to work out a math-based metaphysics in the way Langan, or Knezevic, or Hoffman are trying to do. For one reason, though I am partial to the idea that all of reality can be considered to be reducible to the mathematical imagination of one or more Divine Mathematicians (see my first post in this thread), I am pretty damn sure that it will take an eon of two of spiritual development before we can acquire the merest glimpse of the sort of mathematics the DM(s) use to create physical reality. This is not to say that exercising our mathematical capability is of no use in terms of the spiritual development. On the contrary it is quite useful, as Plotinus noted long ago, but just in terms of developing mental discipline. It is just that we should not be deluded into thinking that anything we can come up is ontologically relevant.

As for Langan, he commits a common mistake:

Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33]

Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it.

This is just arm-waving, done with an abuse of the word 'potential'. We say that an acorn has the potential to become an oak, and we do so because of the structure (form) of the acorn. That is, to say that X has the potential to become Y presupposes that X has some form or other. But the UBT is unstructured (formless). Therefore it has, in itself, no potential at all.

[SanteriSatama]

to call it "love" is as vague of a notion as you can get.

Saying that, I know exactly what you mean

<3

[SanteriSatama]

I am pretty damn sure that it will take an eon of two of spiritual development before we can acquire the merest glimpse of the sort of mathematics the DM(s) use to create physical reality.

I can't be that sure about eons, as long as we are speaking of mere glimpses and some rare moments in some biological form math subroutines that can succeed to contribute something "new" to DM's.

This is just arm-waving, done with an abuse of the word 'potential'. We say that an acorn has the potential to become an oak, and we do so because of the structure (form) of the acorn. That is, to say that X has the potential to become Y presupposes that X has some form or other. But the UBT is unstructured (formless). Therefore it has, in itself, no potential at all.

I agree. Indefinite, in relation to some notion of definite, is still a kind of structure and form.

[Squidgers]

It's a confusion to call coherence theory of truth and process ontology a "model", as the term refers to a static structure. Of course we start from being-in-the-world, where else? Assuming external perspective to world is a no-go.

It's a model in as much as you are attempting to model it by explaining its features to other people and reason for its truthfulness.

I'm going a bit off topic here but I'm curious about your theory.

I have a theory that anything that is found ubiquitously throughout nature must be a clue to something more fundamental. Like a scale invariant metaphor with vast practical applicability.

Do your theories posit anything similar? Which aspects of reality might you include in this?