Teoria algoritmica della complessità

Gregory J. Chaitin

Published in Italian by G. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, 2006
Translated and edited by Prof Ugo Pagallo, University of Turin

Review in Nuncius

Order Pagallo, Introduzione alla filosofia digitale. Da Leibniz a Chaitin
Order Chaitin, Teoria algoritmica della complessità
Order Pagallo, Teoria giuridica della complessità



Foreword

Most mathematicians are Platonists, believing in a world of eternal mathematical truths existing in some domain beyond space and time. This philosophical position on the nature of mathematical reality leads to a view of the practice of mathematics as an exploration of a fixed, static, and eternally unchanging landscape that can only be seen in bits and pieces as one moves about within it.

In the papers in this volume, Greg Chaitin has mounted impressive evidence against such a Platonic view of mathematics. Rather than seeing mathematics as an eternally fixed realm, in which "truths" sit like ancient statues covered in the jungle waiting to be rediscovered by intrepid explorers, Chaitin sees mathematics as an evolutionary process in which the mathematician creates these sentinels.

The thread running through these articles is the notion of complexity, defined in a very specific way so as to measure the information content in a mathematical statement. Chaitin shows that mathematics itself has infinite complexity, which among other things implies that it is inexhaustible; the human mind as a finite object is incapable of ever creating that Holy Grail of the physicists, a "theory of everything" containing all possible mathematical truths. This fact of the inexhaustibility of mathematics is the strongest possible testimony to the practice of mathematics being one of creation, not exploration. In short, mathematics is like an empirical science, not simply an exercise in logic.

The ideas uncovered here reside at the very core of the philosophy of mathematics, and deserve the widest possible audience. Greg Chaitin's work will go down next to that of Gödel, Turing, von Neumann and other demigods of the mathematical pantheon, whose ideas changed our view of what is and what isn't. The articles presented in this volume constitute the distilled essence of that work.

----John Casti, Wissenschaftzentrum Wien, Vienna, Austria


Medallion commemorating Leibniz's discovery of binary arithmetic.


Preface

The papers in this collection explore the philosophical implications of measuring the complexity of something by the size in bits of the smallest computer program for calculating it. Let me tell you right away what I think is the biggest impact of this information-theoretic, algorithmic notion of complexity.

In physics, it is normally assumed, there must be a theory of everything that can fit on a T-shirt and that explains the entire universe. Of course, we do not know this TOE yet, but physicists believe that this simple and elegant theory exists. Biology, on the other hand, is the domain of complexity, where everything is diverse, rich and complicated and there are no simple equations that can tell us what is going on.

Is mathematics like physics or like biology? The conventional view is that pure math is like physics, not like biology, because there are simple, self-evident principles that we can all agree on and that in principle permit us to deduce all mathematical truths. Surprisingly enough, however, it turns out that the world of mathematical truth has infinite complexity and therefore pure math is actually a lot more like biology than it is like physics! In fact, in my opinion the right way to think about mathematics is that it is not at all static and eternal, it is much more like a biological organism that is constantly growing and evolving as new concepts and new ideas are created and radically transform our understanding.

To me these ideas suggest a quasi-empirical view of math, in which we are much more willing to add new axioms that help us to organize our mathematical experience even though they are not at all self-evident, for pragmatic reasons, much like a physicist would. I feel forced to believe in this extremely heretical idea, because to me it seems to be an inescapable corollary of this information-theoretic point of view. Of course, I am aware of the fact that at this point in time few others share this view.

A much more tentative corollary of this entire viewpoint is its suggestion that perhaps the physical world is actually discrete and built up out of digital information, out of 0s and 1s, and that continuity is an illusion. Amazingly enough, there happen to be some physicists working on quantum gravity, on the thermodynamics of black holes, who now suspect that any physical system can only contain a finite number of bits of information, which in fact grows as the surface area of the physical system, not as its volume! I'm referring to the Bekenstein bound and the so-called "holographic principle." What a coincidence! Where these ideas will lead, nobody can tell.

Anyway, the four papers in this collection hopefully provide, when read in the order that they are presented here, an understandable introduction to these ideas. They also contain many pointers to the literature and suggestions for further work.

----Gregory Chaitin, June 2006


Contents

  1. Irreducible complexity in pure mathematics
    (Mathematics & Narrative Meeting, Mykonos, Greece, 2005)

  2. Leibniz, information, math and physics
    (International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg, Austria, 2003)

  3. Epistemology as information theory: from Leibniz to Ω
    (European Computing and Philosophy Conference, Västerås, Sweden, 2005)

  4. Leibniz, randomness & the halting probability
    (Mathematics Today magazine, 2004)
     +
    L'univers est-il intelligible?
    (La Recherche magazine, 2003)

Postscript

    Chaitin e le scienze pratiche della complessità
    (Lengthy essay written especially for this volume by Ugo Pagallo)

    See also Pagallo, Teoria giuridica della complessità


In the Alps near Turin with Ugo Pagallo, 2006: