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. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
