Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:23:24 +1000

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:35:02PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Bruno writes
>
> > If minds are turing-emulable then indeed minds cannot
> > perceive something as being provably non-turing-emulable, but minds
> > can prove that 99,999...% of comp-Platonia is not turing-emulable.
>
> I don't pretend to understand this at all. You are saying
> that minds (e.g. we) cannot *perceive* something as being
> provably non-turing-emulable, yet minds can nonetheless
> *prove* that something is non-turing-emulable.
>
> I (very naively, of course) would have supposed that as soon
> as a mind proved that X was Y, then that very mind would
> have perceived that X was provably Y.
>
> How confusing.
>
> Lee

I think what Bruno is saying is that the set of noncomputable strings
is of measure 1 within the UD output (ie comp-Platonia), even if it is
impossible to ascertain whether any particular string is
noncomputable. (Some strings are provably computable, of course).

Cheers

-- 
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         R.Standish.domain.name.hidden             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wed Sep 07 2005 - 00:53:19 PDT