Le 09-févr.-06, à 07:22, Kim Jones a écrit :


I was just about to ask what an angel was! You must have read my mind, Bruno.
Non-machine-emulable is angel. OK.



Why do they(?) have to be called "angel"? Can one liken them(?) to the theological description of an angel or is there some other reason?


Actually Plotinus never use that word. Instead, he seems to use "gods" or in some partiicular case "daemon". I use it because it is shorter than "non-machine" and less disturbing than Plotinus' "Gods". I am open that they could be liken to any "celestial" object sincere theologian can discuss,. Sincere = they can discuss it in the open-to-doubt scientist way to talk about things. The advantage of "angel" is that it reminds us that they are not effective constructible objects. They exist in the "intelligible world" only (Plato's Heaven, Cantor Paradise, Plotinus Divine Intellect). Terrestrial angel could exist though, but this is an open problem (both for theoreticians using comp or weaker, and empiricists). I hope people are not too much disturbed by my vocabulary. For those who knows a bit about recursion theory, simple angels can be classified by being more or less canonically associated to the Turing degrees of insolubility. Most angels are just "machine" having added to them some divine ability (under the form of Turing's oracles, or being capable to do omega proofs in one strike, etc.). The interesting thing, for mathematician, is that they existence shows that the incompleteness results are extremely solid, all those angels are still under the Godel-Lob "dicto", and, if I am correct, I mean if ma derivation of physics is correct (which remains to be seen I recall) they are under the quantum "dicto" too.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


Reply via email to