Discrete of course. Jim Bromer
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
