John Mikes >Even in the esoteric case if you include legal matters into your logic, <G> >all these are the workings of the human mind with its restrictions by >the tools available to us now. >I repeat: nature is not restricted by 'our' logic.
Nature is a human construction. The cut between artificial and natural is ... artificial, and so is ... natural, etc. :-) (BTW y're right: legal matters can be handled by the logic KD, or variants of it, this has been studied by Kalinowski). As a platonist I would say that logic(s) is (are) not restricted by 'our' nature. >There are two possibilities: either restrict our interest in 'nature' to the >aspect we can handle in the mind, or we have to accept wider aspects >as possibilities beyond what we find "reasonable". You really seem to be a religious believer in 'nature'. That is a quite respectable and widespread opinion, but I doubt it. It takes as obvious what I am trying to figure out. But then, most people (inclined toward naturalism) believe that my position is well beyond what we can find "reasonable" ... It just happens that I propose a proof based on the comp hypothesis, and on some amount of platonism. Are you telling me we must abandon comp? That move seems to me much premature. Perhaps I completely misunderstand your message. Just tell me. Note also that when I use the word "our" or "we", in general it means we the UTM, not we the humans. (I forget to insist on that point, but it shows that the approach I advocate is not human-centered, but universal machine-centered; that's quite wider, especially with Church's thesis). Bruno
