Le 15-févr.-06, à 17:30, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> As Bruno said, now we really don't know what a machine is.
Actually I was just saying that no machine can *fully* grasp *all
aspect* of machine. But machines can know what machines are. Only, if a
machine M1 is more complex than M2, M2 will not been able to prove the
consistency of M1, for example. And then if we are machine (comp) such
limitations apply to us, and this provides lot of informations,
including negative one which we can not prove except that we can derive
them from the initial comp act of faith ("yes doctor").
cf:
> Bruno: ... and note that the coherence of taking simultaneously
> both a and b above is provided by the incompleteness
> results (Godel, ...) which can be summarized by "... no
> machine can grasp all aspect of machine".
Tom:
> So in the absense of a precise definition, perhaps we end up running
> away from ill-defined words like "machine", "reason", "soul", "faith",
> etc., for who knows what personal "reasons".
That is why I propose simple definitions. Reasoning = provability = Bp
= Beweisbar("p") cf Godel 1931.
Soul = first person = provability-and-truth = Bp & p = third Plotinus'
hypostase.
This can look as an oversimplification but the gap between truth and
provability (incarnated in the corona G* minus G) detrivialises (if I
can say) all this.
My fault. I will come back on this.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Thu Feb 16 2006 - 05:58:50 PST