I don't understand what is the purpose of such a comment... one that I've seen too many times. The only logical conclusion is "Nothing is explainable !".... well ok then I will gonna eat my banana !

## Advertising

If your premises is "Nothing is explainable" then it is logical that you conclude that "Nothing is explainable", going in parabolic wording about it won't make it better. 2011/6/5 Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how > >>> computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of > >>> mathematical > >>> propositions is as follows: > >>> > >>> Most would agree that a statement such as "8 is composite" has an > eternal > >>> objective truth. > >> > >> Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure. > > > > But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. > > I’m not sure what you mean here. “Agree” in what sense? > > Everyone agrees that the axioms of arithmetic are...what? Interesting? > Useful? > > Who is “everyone”? > > Does everyone also agree that there are other axiomatic systems? > > > > And we could take any > > universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws cannot > > depend on the choice of the "universal base". > > What exactly are “physical laws”? > > You’re really saying “the regularities in our experience cannot depend > on the choice of the universal base”? > > > >>> Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of structures > >>> such as our universe or the computation of your mind. > >> > >> Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of "mind"? > >> If so, why? > >> > >> Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just > >> a way of thinking about our experience? > >> > >> Is it: > >> > >> Recursive relations cause thought. > >> > >> OR: > >> > >> Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational > >> beliefs. > > > > I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming > Church > > thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories, machines, > > entities, etc. > > What are your justifications for assuming the Church thesis? > > Do oracles exist in Platonia? In HyperPlatonia perhaps? If not, what > precludes their existence? > > > > Jason is right, computation occurs in "arithmetical platonia", even in a > > tiny part of it actually, independently of us. > > Ya, I have my doubts about that. > > > > This tiny part is assumed in the rest of science, and comp makes > > it necessarily enough (by taking seriously the first and third person > > distinction). > > What is science in a deterministic universe? What is science in a > probabilistic universe? What other kinds of universes could there be? > > > Rex > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.