Le 14-juin-07, à 18:13, John Mikes a écrit :
> I wonder about Bruno's (omniscient) Lob-machine, how it handles a > novelty. Did you receive my last mail? I quote below the relevant part. To be sure, there is a technical sense, in logic, of "omniscience" in which the lobian machines are "omniscient". But I doubt that you are using "omniscience" in that technical sense. Let me ask you what you mean by "omniscience"? Bruno <<quote: > John: > I know that you ask your oimniscient Loebian machine, Bruno: Aaah... come on. It is hard to imagine something less omniscient and more modest than the simple lobian machine I interview, like PA whose knowledge is quite a tiny subset of yours. You are still talking like a *pregodelian* mechanist. Machine can no more be conceived as omniscient, just the complete contrary. And adding knowledge makes this worse. You can see consciousness evolution as a trip from G to G*, but that trip makes the gap between G and G* bigger. The more a universal machine knows, the more she will be *relatively* ignorant. With comp, knowledge is like a light in the dark, which makes you aware of the bigness of the explorable reality, and beyond. endquote>> 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
