Le 14-juin-07, à 18:13, John Mikes a écrit :
> I wonder about Bruno's (omniscient) Lob-machine, how it handles a
> novelty.
Did you receive my last mail? I quote below the relevant part. To be
sure, there is a technical sense, in logic, of "omniscience" in which
the lobian machines are "omniscient". But I doubt that you are using
"omniscience" in that technical sense. Let me ask you what you mean by
"omniscience"?
Bruno
<<quote:
> John:
> I know that you ask your oimniscient Loebian machine,
Bruno:
Aaah... come on. It is hard to imagine something less omniscient and
more modest than the simple lobian machine I interview, like PA whose
knowledge is quite a tiny subset of yours.
You are still talking like a *pregodelian* mechanist. Machine can no
more be conceived as omniscient, just the complete contrary.
And adding knowledge makes this worse. You can see consciousness
evolution as a trip from G to G*, but that trip makes the gap between G
and G* bigger. The more a universal machine knows, the more she will be
*relatively* ignorant.
With comp, knowledge is like a light in the dark, which makes you aware
of the bigness of the explorable reality, and beyond.
endquote>>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jun 15 2007 - 06:44:03 PDT