Dear Professor Cristinel Stoica,
I found your line of reasoning demonstrating the hard problem of consciousness in fact exists, and its centrality to our conception of reality using arguments grounded in mathematics both ingenious and beautiful.
I will keep a copy of your work for further reading, and references ( if any circumstances arise).
What also pleases me is that I sense in between your work and ours ( link: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3563) we share mutual ground, and we conclude indeed limitations of mathematics are equivalent to limitations of natural science along very similar lines of reasoning; something which you nicely summarize as:
"But even if we would know with what mathematical structure our world is isomorphic, it
wouldn't mean we would know everything, because our knowledge can only be expressed in a finite
number of axioms, and our proofs can only have finite length. Our knowledge will always be limited
by G¨odel incompleteness (G¨odel, 1931) and Turing's noncomputability result (Turing, 1937)."
Indeed we share a similar stance to what you have said, "Science
is a way to decode the book. It proceeds by identifying various words in various contexts, and
the result is a dictionary, along with some grammar rules. Each word in the dictionary is defined
in terms of other words, but there are no primary words whose meaning we understand. All the
definitions in the dictionary are eventually circular. And the grammar rules, which correspond in
this metaphor to the laws and principles we propose to describe the world, are purely syntactical.", and propose a grand lexicographic project for constructing a complete dictionary for Nature.
We hope you have time to read our work!
And thank you for your marvelous entry and the joy and insight we found in your work is reflected in our rating!
Kind Regards,
Raiyan Reza, and Rastin Reza