Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!vsi1!wyse!mips!kung
From: kung@mips.COM (Kung Hsu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: intelligence and the initial conditions of the universe (BANG!!!)
Summary: initial condition, Mathematics
Message-ID: <25445@batman.mips.COM>
Date: 15 Aug 89 00:34:36 GMT
References: <0YtCI7a00V4G40XHNL@andrew.cmu.edu> <4558@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Lines: 70

In article <4558@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
> From article <0YtCI7a00V4G40XHNL@andrew.cmu.edu>, by jk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joe Keane):
> \In article 1989Aug11.114022.481@IDA.ORG> rwex@IDA.ORG (Richard Wexelblat)
> \writes:
> \>In article <1490@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> \>>     The mathematics is independent of the universe.  
> \>
> \>You beg the question.  How do you know this is so?
> \
> \Because we state in advance what assumptions (axioms) we're using.  Everything
> \else can be derived from them. ...
> 
> In advance of doing the mathematics?  But that's not so, in general.
> Axioms have usually been discovered after some significant mathematics
> has been done.  If there were no interesting or useful mathematics in
> some area, why would anyone bother to axiomatize it?  It is also not
> true that axioms have a logical priority.  The theorems that follow from
> a set of axioms are also sufficient to deduce the axioms.  Besides, if
> axioms _were_ stated in advance, how would that show that mathematics is
> independent of the universe?  And besides _that_, where did you get
> the idea that only mathematics can be axiomatized?
> 
> 				Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu


Mathematics, as what we know right now, has little to do with the
essense (or initial condition) of universe. From knowledge point of
view, number theory, Topology, Hilbert Space,... are just a partial
models to explain certain facets of the world, not even universe,
because something are man made. The reason I call then partial is
that from Godel incomplete theorem, it is pretty easy to find 
contraditions within itself, even though they serve the purpose of 
explain the space partially very well. Also, look at the lack of
any connection among these Mathematical fields, to me, it is like
complicated deduction games. It barely covers its own field, never
talking about universe. When you say Mathematics have something to
do with universe is like saying automobile has something to do with
the essense of universe.
From meta level point of view, if Mathematics knowledge is of no 
signaficance, how about the logic? It seems to me logic is just
a language that everybody use to describe or reason about the 
complicated Math phenomenon. As to why everybody believes logic,
I don't really know, but seems to have something to do with how
information is organized. e.g. deduction is relinking of information.
Human intelligence has a lot to do with mastering techniques in this
level(not just Mathematical Logic). What kind of calculus in human brain
is still in research. From this point of view, things like number theory,
prime numbers in the original posting is first level knowledge which is
the product of second level logics/intelligence. They are not the core
of intelligence.
What is the essense of universe then? Today, majority of physicist 
probably believe Big Bang theory and contructed the Unifying Field Theory
alone it. Theoretical Physicist try to describe the universe 10 to the
-30th second after Big Bang when all the four fundamental forces are
unified. The universe, at that time, is indeed not discrete, it does
not even have proton, neutron, atom,...etc. This theory is roughly in
place. The question is what is before Big Bang? Some physicist postulate
that is Emptiness. This is the postulation, after formulating the
situation at a fragment of a second after Big Bang, it is intuitive.
However, it may be an *appropriate* description. Three thousand years ago,
a Chinese, LaoSze, father of Taoism, writes in his book very similar
description about the initial condition of universe. Another analogy is
that there is a pond, when there is no breeze, the surface of the water
is so tranquil, and Big Bang is like throwing a stone in the middle
of the pond. Thers is an execellent series of film on PBS couple 
months ago, talks a lot about state of the art study in this area.
Given all this, the initial condition of universe, right now is
sur-experiential, sur-logical, is of yet higher level and should not
internixed with intelligence/logic level, nor knowledge/experience
level.