It's not really a sleight of hand... I mean, if you can say "This sentence is false" has a truth value of 0.5, without having to assign it a value of 0 or 1, then you have a lot more flexibility in avoiding paradox.... What they are doing is a fancy version of that, which works more generally...
ben But it is not an effective way to avoid paradox. (And I know that you already know that). I always wonder if the ideas in these papers have any practical use. For instance, some problems, like appropriate engineering problems, do have effective ways to increase the accuracy of the approximations given the result of some test. There is still a problem here. If the empirical method is applied incorrectly (or there is a variation which means that has to be compensated for) then successive 'refinements' of the test may not produce more accurate results. And that makes me think. Just because the results of successive tests are narrowed in to a particular reading that does not mean that the result is necessarily more accurate because there is a possibility that the variation of the problem needs to be adjusted for some unusual feature. So a practical value of their method seems to be limited to problems that are both appropriate and have well defined test methods that can give more precise results given some kind of refining process. But their idea might be useful in the recognition that some refinement process does not produce more precise results once a certain point is reached. By trying various ways to adjust the testing process the system might be able to find results which do seem to improve the results. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Ben Goertzel via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's not really a sleight of hand... > > I mean, if you can say "This sentence is false" has a truth value of 0.5, > without having to assign it a value of 0 or 1, then you have a lot more > flexibility in avoiding paradox.... What they are doing is a fancy version > of that, which works more generally... > > ben > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I took a stab at the paper and it seemed like they were trying to get >> outside the system with a sleight of hand involving probabilities. It >> seems like they are writing for a very small in-group. Ben: I think >> your writing is clear. I've been working through your book. People >> should write high-fallutin' metamath papers more like that. >> >> On 8/25/14, Ben Goertzel via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: >> > *** >> > >> > 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. >> > *** >> > >> > No, not really; you seem to not understand their theorem ;p >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------- >> > AGI >> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> > RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae >> > Modify Your Subscription: >> > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt. > James T. Kirk > > "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery / None but ourselves can free our > minds" -- Robert Nesta Marley > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
