Philosophy Now Forum

Hi,

This topic to write about Goedel Escher Bach, by Douglas Hofstadter.

To be brief, I believe to know that Douglas Hofstadter is a physicist nowadays active in cognitive psychology and computer science ("only that").

The book seems to have been written about the question to know if the universe is really an analogy to a formalism.

As I am beginning, all the purposes are welcome.

Thanks.

Goedel Escher Bach is a weighty composition. Are you still interested in examining it?

Fun read, but don't put too much weight in it. Can everything in the universe be formalized by a part of the model itself? I doubt it.

I read some pages (through 120 I guess), and this books appeared to me very interesting by its style and problems. I can compare it to Raymond Smullians's books, and 'Alice in Wonderland' of Carroll.

I started to read it because of Godel's problem. They gave me an advice about this book to be read for more simple understanding of Godel's theorems of incompleteness. Also, it was not bad introduction to math logic. I'd like to read it more closely, but it would be more interesting if there were no such more spare stuff - very interesting, but very keeping away from the main theme.

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:07 pm I read some pages (through 120 I guess), and this books appeared to me very interesting by its style and problems. I can compare it to Raymond Smullians's books, and 'Alice in Wonderland' of Carroll.

I started to read it because of Godel's problem. They gave me an advice about this book to be read for more simple understanding of Godel's theorems of incompleteness. Also, it was not bad introduction to math logic. I'd like to read it more closely, but it would be more interesting if there were no such more spare stuff - very interesting, but very keeping away from the main theme.

For formal logic, better to read Suzanne Langer's intro to symbolic logic.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:56 am Fun read, but don't put too much weight in it. Can everything in the universe be formalized by a part of the model itself? I doubt it.

Can we choose the part of the model that we want to run away with?

I, myself, am a thy man.

What is this "formalization" I keep hearing about? Putting it into formal logic?

Sure everything can be formalized if your model is good enough.

For instance, "God created everything and God makes everything happen." Dat a model.

So... the reason A+B = B + A, is dat God made it to be that way.

The reason elephants have a long trunk is dat God made it to be that way.

ETC.

You can expand from there, as have mankind's best of the best of the best thinkers. They kept on expanding and expanding. And lo and behold: Now we have Goedel, Escher and Bach. Model GEB replaces model GOD.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:44 am

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:07 pm I read some pages (through 120 I guess), and this books appeared to me very interesting by its style and problems. I can compare it to Raymond Smullians's books, and 'Alice in Wonderland' of Carroll.

I started to read it because of Godel's problem. They gave me an advice about this book to be read for more simple understanding of Godel's theorems of incompleteness. Also, it was not bad introduction to math logic. I'd like to read it more closely, but it would be more interesting if there were no such more spare stuff - very interesting, but very keeping away from the main theme.

For formal logic, better to read Suzanne Langer's intro to symbolic logic.

Oh, I see. Thanks.

I used to read: A. Grzegorczyk's "Logika Popularna", M. Zagarelli "Logic for Dummies", and now I'm on Hilbert, Akkerman "Foundations of Theoretical Logic" path. The last books seemed very fine; no spare details, just straight info.

The best way to learn about logic in 2019 is to invent one. logic/programming are two sides of the same coin and so much of what can be learned about logic can be learned through practice rather than theory.

Most modern Computer Science courses cover how programming language compilers/interpreters work. As part of the coursework you are usually required to solve the bootstrapping problem.

What the bootstrapping problem entails is writing an interpreter for formal language X in the formal language X itself. e.g you have a language that can interpret/compile itself. It's just putting what Hofstadter calls 'strange loops'/self-reference to practice.

Once you've wrapped your mind around bootstrapping/recursion - you know everything GEB can teach you.