[FRIAM] LNC Impossibility Theorem

[glen]

What work are these formalizations doing for the program? I mean, it seems like it would be pretty easy to doubt the fidelity of the formalism to the real system (e.g. discrete time, synchronous updating, lack of equivalence classes or neutral networks, etc.). That's OK as long as you have a relatively complete virtual world (e.g. not only are G,E,W synchronously chunked but the entire universe is cellular automata like). So in *that* type of universe, the theorem would show something about that portion of the universe. But it doesn't seem like you're doing that.

The worry I have can be described as "decorative math". (To be clear, I'm as guilty of it as anyone ... but I'm not writing a book. 8^D) If there's not a clear purpose to the formalization, I'd resist including it. If you really feel it's doing some rhetorical work, then I'd recommend softening the main text from:

"We can in fact create a mathematical proof that solving the hard problem is not possible completely. We could call it it the “LNC Impossibility Theorem” (see Appendix D), named after Joseph Levine, Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers who first formulated the hard problem. The LNC Impossibility Theorem states that exact subjective equivalence between two conscious agents is impossible. The hard problem is a shadow of this theorem."

to something like:

"There may be many ways the Hard Problem might be formalized. We provide one such formalization in the LNC Impossibility Theorem (see Appendix D) ..."

Softening the language may allow curmudgeon readers to look past their persnickety nits and ride along with you.


On 9/25/26 1:37 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> The post from Dan Piponi inspired me to invent two new theorems. Google's Gemini helped a bit to formulate them. You can find them in the appendix D and E of my new book.
> https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/ <https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/>
> 
> The "LNC Impossibility Theorem" states that exact subjective equivalence between two conscious agents is impossible. I have named it after Joseph Levine, Thomas Nagel, and David Chalmers who first formulated the hard problem.
> 
> I guess for mathematicians too sloppy and for philosophers too formal, but I am convinced a true solution looks like this. Maybe not exactly but similar.
> 
> -J.


-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.