Further Thoughts on Axioms and Worldmaking

  

 In the last entry. I thought of sets of core convictions we hold at different levels – convictions we at any time are incapable of doubting – as analogous to axioms in a logical-mathematical system. Here I want to add another analogy: analogies between “world-making” (Goodman) and writing the software for a virtual world – as in a video game or a fantasy movie. How are our core convictions, the ones that in some sense make the world we live in at any given time, like the rules of the software engineer constructing virtual reality?

·        Like the analogy of constructing a formal logical language, constructing a virtual world involves establishing a set of rules that govern the behavior of entities within the system. These rules define how objects interact with each other and respond to various stimuli. Well, no world-maker is free the do that. Physical realities like gravity are a real part of our world and can’t be imagined away, even if we may never exactly understand what gravity is. There are physical and biological facts of life that no world version can change. Note, however, that nature was not always imagined as a closed system obeying fixed rules. The idea of God resurrecting Jesus from the dead, while miraculous to be sure, was not a violation of the rules of the universe for Jesus' contemporaries as it is for us. It is more difficult for us to believe. It is more difficult for us not to understand it as myth. The convictions about nature that are part of our mental DNA can usually be set aside only in a difficult rebellion and at the price of open irrationality. Like believing the sky is a dome or the earth is a flat disc. 

 ·        Writing a program involves defining the syntax and semantics of the virtual world. The syntax specifies the correct structure of commands and statements, while the semantics define the meaning and behavior associated with those constructs. Similarly, formal languages in logic have syntax and semantics that dictate how symbols can be combined and interpreted. Again, no world-maker can substitute a private language for the languages we live with. That is a part of the world as it is in itself.

·        Ensuring consistency and coherence is crucial in both cases. In programming, this involves avoiding bugs and ensuring that the virtual world behaves predictably. In formal logic, maintaining consistency ensures that the logical system is sound and free from contradictions. In world-making, a latent contradiction does not exist until we become conscious of it. We also live with tensions between our convictions just beneath the surface of consciousness. These may cause unease or cognitive dissonance. But we typically only confront contradictions between our core convictions when life forces that upon us. Philosophy is partly the attempt to make everything cohere and also respect those aspects of the world that are given – gravity, the need for oxygen and water to live, sexual reproduction, etc. In any case, unlike a formal language or a computer program for a virtual world, we typically live with contradictions. Perhaps we are partly defined by the contradictions we live with.

         We don’t program our worlds or construct them from scratch. We are not creators. We inherit a set of possibilities, take some variation of them over, and perhaps if we are alive extend them – we do not create ex nihilo. In that world-making is not analogous to writing the program for a virtual world. Still, I can imagine representing my world version by identifying as many core convictions as possible on all levels and modeling a virtual world to represent – in a novel, an autobiography, or even a computer game.

 . . .

    In a footnote, I mentioned that formative experiences are almost the foundation of our world versions. I think we must distinguish between different qualities of formative experiences and different characters that live them. It makes a difference whether, for example, I master some human discipline. Bach was able through music to have formative experiences that I cannot, or cannot directly. Perhaps indirectly, when I listen attentively to his music. Also it makes a different whether an individual subliminally comes down on the side of certain core convictions because they are bitter at life, have an urge to elevate their egos (their status, etc.) over other egos, rationalize guilt, console themselves, make themselves “happy”, etc. Or whether they strive to become virtuous, strive for truth, strive to see the world right, etc. Of course, we all have a bit of both in us, some further on the good end of the scale, others on the bad. But things like this must be known to evaluate the depth of one’s core convictions.