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 
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 
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).


Reply via email to