Talk:Digital philosophy

needs categories

This page lists William Gibson and Charles Moffat as digital philosophers - William Gibson is primarily a Novelist, and Charles Moffat is an artist. On each of their wikipedia articles, there is no mention of their positions as philosophers. I'm sure both are interested in philosophy - but have they written any books on the subject? Have they any degrees in philosophy? Are they considered by other well known philosophers to be philosophers? It takes more than an interest in philosophy to call one's self a philosopher.

I'm deleting Gibson from the "Digital Philosophers" section, because there isn't anything saying that he is a bona fide philosopher, and he has never called him self a "digital philosopher". Besides, his books don't necessarily deal with the form of "digital philosophy" discussed in this article.

Ill leave Moffat, since at least he mentioned Digital Philosophy in his book, but really I don't think his stuff has anything to do with what the article is about.

68.193.53.233 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

!

I'd be interested in any relationship to Spinozism (based on my idea that "bits" might be akin to Spinoza's "substance").

Also it should mention it that it is Deterministic (right?).--Ben 09:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

needs categories

Like the header says, this article needs categories. I'd add them, but I'm not sure which ones would be appropriate.--Kross^Talk 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Multism

This is not a notable development in metaphysics, and seems to be old wine in a new bottle anyway The idea that a single substance can have many manifestations and properties is not novel. 1Z 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Other

This page should be merged with Digital physics page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nufe (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I found this article from The Matrix category box. However I have skimmed through the article several times and I can't understand a thing. I can't understand its relationship to the concept of the Matrix series, not what are digital physics, cellular automata or multism, and I can't bother reading the full articles of irrelevant information, only to understand what 'digitalism' is.

So I humbly ask from any knower to try to improve and simplify the article. Put an understandable and secularized introduction in the beginning before the analysis. Thank you Pictureuploader (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the Matrix box linked to this page was probably because both Matrix and digital philosophy says that we are really in a large machine. I agree that the connection is very far fetched. They should not link to each other. Crakkpot (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The math aspects

I think it's a good idea to start a section about the practical consequences of these hypotheses (i.e. if they are true). After all, they are not just a product of purely theoretical gymnastics of the human thought; these concepts all try to solve completely practical problems, arising in the modern Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy and Theosophy - and this is the very reason for their existence.

I also would like to ask a little unconventional question: what kind of knowledge is eligible to be presented on the pages of Wikipedia? Is it obligatory to be "a common knowledge" - one that has been published in science magazines or papers and hence - has been discussed in public or at least in scientists' circles? Or can it be just a theory, a concept, a method (presumably - still in development), which haven't been published yet but discussed only in private? I mean, where's the threshold for claiming some methods "a knowledge"? :-)

I ask this because I have a strong reason to believe that I may have found the basis of that kind of Algebra, about which Einstein speaks in his quote here, in this article. I am not a scientist but a computer programmer and it's really difficult for me to find the appropriate medium where I can share my findings, so... in a nutshell:

Using my methods (which haven't been described in any book on Mathematics or Physics I have read), I managed to find new algorithms for calculating the trigonometric function, such that they are not only twice or more effective to compute but they also don't make use of any constants whatsoever (other than 1 and 0) and they are not a product of ANY previous or common knowledge. Those same methods imply that any transcendental function can be calculated (and represented) using only MAC (Multiply&Add) operations and any [linear] differential equation can be transformed to its decisions by using only 5-th grade math. They also imply that things [must] happen consecutively (at least partially) in order to sustain the cause->effect "flow of information" and that the complex numbers and the differential equations we use to describe the behavior of the physical systems are in fact just the surface, a subset, of far more deeper and richer models - or algorithms (ways to represent the computational connections between a group of inter-dependable variables).

I am also developing my own kind of Digital Philosophy, on which these methods are based, so if someone's interested and might be of help, please contact me! I can be found in most of the social networks by my [last] name: Alexander Patalenski.

(Please feel free to edit or delete any part of this text.)

Patalenski (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

New ideas in DP

Who could write a section on Kant and his application in digital philosophy? https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic