A Framework for Thinking about Knowability by John S Schultz

Dear John S Schultz,

A brilliant observation that, while mathematical logic severely constrains what can be known using algorithmic mathematical patterns, it is not necessarily relevant for other, non-algorithmic types of patterns.

You say "this appears to open the door to a possibility that if human cerebration is non-algorithmic, perhaps we can know the world more completely than the limitation theorems would seem to apply."

You might appreciate the first paragraph on page 8 of my essay Deciding on the nature of time and space.

The history behind that paragraph is the reason that I deeply appreciate your observation that the limitation [math] theorems,... born from the study of algorithmic patterns... have no necessary pertinence to non-algorithmic patterns - and thus no necessary limitations on knowability.

You are correct: it is a big claim. I have for years been trying to formulate this as clearly as you do, with no success. I knew it, but could not so clearly state it. I wish I had been able to make your argument in my essay The Nature of Mind, which had the highest community rating in the 2016-2017 essay contest.

In short, human cerebration is not algorithmic, although of course it includes 'logic', hence algorithmic patterns. The mass-density-based flows in axons and across synaptic gaps generate gravito magnetic fields, and the [endless possible] flow configurations of local fields are 3-D and dynamic, and as I posit this field to be the 'consciousness field', wherein lies awareness, said awareness is not algorithmically structured. You have provided a major missing argument to me, and for this I sincerely thank you.

The dynamic mass-density flows in the brain's trillions of possible neural net connections enable 3-D fields capable of physically approximating any 3-D 'shape' and the self-aware field hence internally 'models' the 3-D reality we either observe or imagine [we do both!] We do not algorithmically compute 3-D from xs, ys, and zs. It goes without saying that no other consciousness model has any idea how we obtain 3-D awareness of the world, at all scales.

The local field is, of course, just a very dense, very organized field self-identified with the local brain, but contiguous with the self-aware universe that Wheeler and many others propose. This field, in its densest possible form, is the field to which all known forces are assumed to converge at the creation/Big Bang. If this gravitational/consciousness field is the essence of self-awareness, it was here at the beginning, and has self-evolved through to the present, increasingly self-aware.

This lack of inherent limitation of knowability is why I reject Hodge's claim that it is 'hubris' to claim awareness of ontology.

I hope your essay makes as much sense to others as it does to me. I think it is brilliant. It is the missing link argument for me, that puts consciousness in 'mathematical' perspective.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John In my essay "Clarification of Physics...." I introduce the mathematical pattern used to create "nature" ( i.e. the physical world and its contents). This mathematical pattern is isomorphic with nature and can be used to understand and explain the natural world. Are there other solutions to the creation of the universe? Not likely. John Crowell

Hi John, Your essay is full of food for thought. Well set out and easy to read. Though I did the many abbreviations difficult to remember and had to keep scrolling through the essay to re-find their definitions, as you had not put them all in one place. Kind Regards, Georgina

I think it is bad form to start with an apology.

You have no reason to do that, I took a lot from your view and presentation.

Dear Mr. Schultz,

thank you for this essay, in which, although not fully spelled out in detail, there is interesting food for thought. I wish you good luck in the contest!

If you have a moment, I would also appreciate if you could have a look at my essay.

All good wishes,

Flavio

John,

Well done. Extremely cogent and orderly in your argument. I do see that our lack of understanding of the quantum world is a limitation on our accomplishments. You speak of nature as a way of studying the patterns of nature, but the quantum world has a part in all of nature's structures, something we seem to have little of a handle on. Randomness not patterns enters into quantum behavior according to our theories. We all know it is difficult to cover the scope of all 3 of the "Us". Undecidability seems to weigh more squarely on algorithmic solutions. Thought your conclusion was masterful. Your zeroing in on Knowable, its nuances in the science world & its assessments. I think yours is on of the best efforts. My essay seems to parallel many of your ideas.

My rating is your 5th. I say this because someone is giving 1s w/o comments.

Jim Hoover

Dear John S Schultz

Thank you for a thought provoking essay with a smooth flow... !!

What will we do for the scientific processes with out any Pattern? For example, we can see some in quantum mechanics..............

Best

=snp

Hello,

I liked a lot your essay, you explain with relevance these limitations in making a distinction between patterns in Nature and patterns in the abstract, your introduction for a partial taxonomy of pattern types is very interesting for the ranking in a deterministic way if I can say. That permits to sort and see the real isomorphisms and our limitations. I love the maths and I beleive strongly that without them we cannot prove of course our assumptions, extrapolations, they must utilised with a kind of wisdom because they can imply also with their properties confusions, that is why it is necessary to rank these mathematical properties to see the real deterministic ones. I wish you good luck in this Contest, your essay was a pleasure to read.

Best Regards

I have shared your essay on Facebook, regards

You are welcome, I am understanding , we try to capture in Words our ideas , like we formalise them in maths and try to prove our assumptions. Personally I work about my thjeory of spherisation, an optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum 3D pshres and cosmological spheres, I consider that all is made of particles and I consider 3 main series finite of 3D spheres having the same number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres, I consider a main primordial serie for the space and two fuels, photons and cold dark matter and when they merge they create the topologies, geometries, matters, particles and fields. I formalise all this puzzle with an intrinsc Ricci flow, the Hamilton Ricci flow, an assymetric Ricci flow also for the unique things probably in the smallest volumes of these series , the lie derivatives, the lie groups, the lie algebras, the Clifford algebras, the topological and euclidian spaces and the poincare conjecture mainly, it is not easy but I try to do my best for this formalisation, I have quantified and renormalised this quantum gravitation with this general reasoning. Don t hesitate to ask details, I will answer with pleasure. Wish you all the best ,

Regards