Hi John, Le 30-sept.-06, à 21:45, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Whatever we 'concentrate on' for comprehensibility, is *our* way of > doing. > Within our HUMAN comprehension. We cannot concentrate on things we > cannot > comprehend. I don't understand. We do research because there are things which we don't comprehend with the hope to comprehend them. We don't comprehend the cosmos but we can look at it and learn things. > Don't even KNOW such things. I can know things like pain and pleasure, although there are no theory which can explain them. But I can look at them and interrogate them. > We may assume that "there may be > incomprehensible other features' inaccessible to our human mind, but > *so* > they are. So we may say that numbers (??) or comp CAN comprehend more > than > we do, but nothing can be said about that 'more' in human discours. We > cannot even phantasize about 'those' items. I know that many on this list have a trouble with Godel's incompleteness theorem. The revolutionary character of such a theorem is that it explains how numbers and machines (and we are that, once we assume comp) can apprehend, if not comprehend, their limitations. Machine can look, well, not right into their blind spot, but on the border of their blind spot, and discover its creative nature. > > What I referred to is that we cannot detail such unknowables (= the > incomprehensibles) into our image-composition of the existence. > How do you know that (those?) numbers HAVE limitations to see? > My "human prejudice" is the recognition of my limitations. All what I claim is that this "prejudice" is much more general than human. Even without the comp assumption we can show that all machine developing correct theories about themselves will discover such limitations, and even discover the common mathematical structure of those limitations. The UDA shows the physical laws come from that. > If you include into your discours the features comprehensible for the > numbers or comp (beyond the human one) you must reduce the number- or > comp > comprehensibility to a human level to talk about it. The number comprehensibility is a priori simpler, but then longer. > Like: To turn infinite into very much/big. Big finite things are usually more complex than the infinite which has been introduced mainly for simplifying things. > Domesticate the wild. > I find it neither sad nor comical. I find it incomprehensible. I apologize if I have been a little rough. My point is that many interventions you are doing fit very nicely with what I try to express myself, except that I refer to machine's limitations instead of human limitations (this is natural once we assume the comp hyp.). Since Post, Godel, Turing, etc. the study of machine's limitation has become a branch of math and/or computer science, and this gives, assuming comp, a way to tackle more systematically that limitation phenomena. Of course this leads to more technical posts. I will perhaps put some label like [tech] so that people who wants to skip more technical posts can do it even automatically. On the contrary the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) needs only a very minimal amount of computer science, to get the idea of universal dovetailing. I think most people understand the first seven steps of the eight steps version of the UDA like in my "SANE" paper. The 8th step is intrinsically more difficult. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
