I don't accept the diagonal argument by the way. Since the Gödel argument is (I believe) based on discreet branches I think it would be possible to manage them with infinitely expanding number of reference markers. And Wikipedia's page on Logical Positivism says, "only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be *cognitively meaningful." *So I guess they did not absolutely rule out any potential paradoxes from being considered although that looks like something that they were hoping to work around. So I think the kind of system Gödel was working with allowed a logical language of analysis to use references (like expanding a token for a compound statement) so he was able to use the idea of a self-referential string in his paper. So the system in the paper by the MIRI guys seems to be based on a logical language of analysis that would rule out certain kinds of sentences if they tended toward not being logically evaluable. (This might be established using theoretical constructs.) It is important that the evaluation process be able to use theoretical 'abstractions' - at least logical theories - and I assume that these methods are what can be used to deal with simple infinities and to recognize paradoxes.
So anyway, even though I find the idea (if I understood it at all) to be really very interesting, I don't really accept the methodology that these guys wrote about. But so what? I don't accept the Gödel Theorem either. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
