I think of myself, in many ways, as a philosopher. I've never taken a philosophy class, let alone declared it as my major. And I'm woefully under-read in the area. But I find thinking about philosophical questions to be extremely enjoyable.
Over the years, mostly since I started college, I've developed, what seems to me, a fairly consistent philosophical world-view. In talking with my friend Lane, among the the brightest individuals I know, I've found myself able to support my claims with pretty good arguments. (Though she may not be pressing me hard enough!)
So, I feel the need to sort of formalize my ideas, write them down, and fill in the gaps. For now, let me make explicitly public some of my basic claims, and later, talk about some areas in my thinking that still need more thought.
- My basic assumption: The universe is a rational system. That is, the universe evolves (and this verb may require clarification) based upon a constant set of rules, in much the same way as cellular automata, etc.
- Formal systems, that is, logical or mathematical theories, and their implications exist only in the abstract. That is, they don't really exist as objects in the universe. We simply reason via their representations, which do. Also, given a formal system, its implications exist mechanically, without the intervention of logicians or mathematicians, even if they are required to figure them out. I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I think it's important.
- Rational systems can be described using formal systems. For example, the constraints of a problem can be modeled using propositional logic, as is the case in satisfiability testing.
- Using mathematical induction, under the assumption of (1), the state of the universe at this instant was uniquely determined by the set of rules under which the universe is evolving and the initial state of the universe. Generalizing, the state of the universe at any instant is uniquely determined by the same factors.
- It follows from (4) that "free will", the ability to actively choose how we interact with the world, cannot exist, since at all instances, the state of the universe, and thus the state of the sensors and effectors of all potential "free agents", is uniquely determined.
- Morality, meaning, etc. must be defined in terms of the universe itself, since defining them in other terms is essentially meaningless, given that our experience is, so it appears, bound to this universe.
- Defining these concepts in terms of the universe, a rational system, allows us to formalize the concepts. These formalizations are, obviously, formal systems, as described in (2), and we can derive philosophical information from their implications.
Those are the basic axioms and ideas of my philosophical thinking. Any and all comments in this regard would be extremely valuable. For now, let me list the topics that I feel I really need to address:
- The validity of my basic assumption.
- The question of empiricism: rationally derived results should coincide with what we observe in the universe. If not, our definitions and/or formal descriptions are invalid and must reformulated. Essentially, I seek to apply the scientific method to all fields of study. That is, the process of formal model > theoretical result > empirical verification should be as applicable to ethics as it is to particle physics.
- Quesetions of the existence of supreme beings and their potential to interact with the universe.
- The ontology of formal systems. My view is that humans reason via some physical representation of the formal systems, but to what extent do those formal systems really exist?
- Possible epistemological implications involving the definition of the universe in (1) and theoretical computer science. If the universe behaves like some kind of automata, various work in theoretical computer science may thus imply something about the universe. If so, what, and how do we interpret it?
That's all for now, but I dare say you ought to have had quite enough of my writing for now. Please! Comment if you have any insights at all!