Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:59, James N Rose a écrit :

> Math and reductive science ignore and dis-consider collateral 
> co-extancy.

The comp assumption leads to the less reductive possible account of the 
person and person POVs.
For example, comp does not guaranties *any* survival, but it guaranties 
  that no such survival-guaranties are possible. It guaranties 
eventually that personal identity can only be a matter of ...  
*personal* matter.

Perhaps are you confusing math before and after 
Post-Turing-Church-Godel-Lob ...

... or you refer to those mathematicians who have not yet swallow the 
incompleteness phenomena...

Actually I believe that the incompleteness theorem (especially with 
comp or weaker) makes it impossible for science, or better, for the 
scientific attitude, to be reductive. With comp the diagonalization 
tale is before all a lesson of modesty.

Despite this, Goel's incompleteness theorem is a constructive theorem, 
and it leads to the discovery that "machine ignorance" is wonderfully 
structured, rich, productive ...
And UDA justifies why the laws of physics comes from there, in a 
testable way.

To assume our finiteness, what comp really is about, enlarges the range 
of our possible infinite realms. With comp only the gods can miss the 
unconceivable freedom. Somehow.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to