Le 24-mai-07, à 19:32, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
> Thanks for your patience! , I know that my arguments are somehow
> raw and immature in your view, but I'm just at the beginning.
> S1 can simulate S2, but S1 has no reason to believe whatever S2 says.
> There is no problem.
> Hofstadter "strange loop" are more related to arithmetical
> self-reference or general fixed point of recursive operator
> OK then it, becomes my own idea!
> Suppose S1 and S2 are the same systems, and both KNOW that the other
> one is a similar system.
They cannot *know* that. The first person associated to each system is
different of the other. Unless you mean something *very* general by
> Then both have the reason to believe in each others statements, with
> the improvement that the new system is COMPLETE.
Why? Only if S2 is much more simple than S1, can S1 be complete on S2.
No system can be complete on itself or on anything similar to itself.
> We've not exploited any more powerful system to overcome the
> incompleteness in our system.
> I think this is a great achievement!
> It's actually like this: YOU believe in ME. THEY give
> you a godelian statement (You theoretically can not prove this
> statement) you give it to ME and then see that I can neither prove it n
> or disprove it, so you tell
> THEM that their statement is true.
If that is a proof, then you are inconsistent. If it is an intuition,
or a prayer, a hope, a bet, or anything like that, then it is ok, but
you don't need to system for that. S1 can use the very similar system
The apparent infinite regression is soleved by the traditional
diagonalisation technics. Look in the archive for both
in the archive. Or ask (and be patient :)
> But the wonder is in what we do just by ourselves. We have a THEORY OF
> MIND. You actually do not need to ask me about the truth of that
> statement, you just simulate me and that's why I can see the a
> godelian statement is at last true.
But a simulation is not a proof, especially if the simulation doesn't
> But in the logical sense ONE system wont be able to overcome the incomp
> so I might conclude:
> I'M NOT ONE LOGICAL SYSTEM!
> This is how we might rich a theory of self. A loopy(!) and multi(!)
Here I do agree (but from a different reasoning). See later, or,
meanwhile, search for "Plotinus" or "guardian angel" or "hypostases".
Very shortly, the lobian-godelian incompleteness forces the distinction
Bp & p
Bp & Dt
(Bp & p) & Dt
which makes a total of eight notions of "self" (8, not 5, because 3 of
them splits in two different logic due to incompleteness. B is for
"beweisbar" and correspond to Goel arithmetical provability predicate.
You can read them as
or, with Plotinus (300 AD):
With the provable versus true distinction (the [ ] / [ ]*
distinction), the hypostases are:
discursive Intellect divine Intellect
intell. matter intell. matter
sensible mat. sensible mat
AND THEN, éadding the comp assumption leads to the comp physics, for
the soul and both matter hypostases, and it is enough to cmpare the
comp-physics with the empirical physics to evaluate the degree of
plausibility of comp. And that's my point.
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