To me, this kind of result means nothing. I expect any sentient being to operate with simultaneous contradicting theories, pardon my french but it may want to watch the movie at the same time it wants to pee :) (want and need are somewhat synonymous here, meaning there is a whole theory why you should keep watching and a whole other theory why you should be peeing at some other location).
Surely, something clever will have to happen to reconcile those zillions of disjoint theories/agents, but it would be asking for too much to avoid the hard work via one proof or another. I am also afraid that a mathematical resolution will also stifle creativity, ie you would be prevented from peeing in a bottle or whatever. Obviously mathematicians will keep chasing that pink elephant :) AT On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Ben Goertzel via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > To me, their result is useful in that it tells me that OpenCog's PLN > logical inference component is unlikely to encounter a Godel-type paradox > when reflecting on itself, due to its use of imprecise truth values to > quantify the strength of logical relationships... > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Jim Bromer 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 >> >> >> 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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279> | Modify >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <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/303/14050631-7d925eb1> | > 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
