Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> even though the paper actually >> doesn't even begin to adress the question. > > Which question? The paper mainly just formulate a question, shows how > comp makes it possible to translate the question in math, and show > that the general shape of the possible solution is more close to Plato > than to Aristotle. The problem is that the paper is taking the most fundamental issue for granted, and it does not actually show anything if the main assumption is not true and at the end presents a conclusion that is mainly just what is being taken for granted (we are abstractly digital, and computations can lead to a 1p of view).
You say "assuming COMP", but COMP is either impossible with respect to its own conclusion (truly, purely digital substitutions are not possible due to matter being non-digital), or it is too vague to allow for any conclusion ("kinda digital", "digital at some level" are not enough for a strict reasoning). You also say that a 1p view can be recovered by incompleteness, but actually you always present *abstractions* of points of view, not the point of view. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> How am I supposed to argue with >> that? >> >> There is no point of studying Gödel if we have a false assumption >> about what >> the proof even is about. It is never, at no point, about numbers as >> axiomatic systems. It is just about what we can express with them on a >> meta-level. > > On the contrary. The whole Gödel's thing relies on the fact that the > meta-level can be embedded at the level. > Feferman fundamental papers extending Gödel is "arithmetization of > metamathematics". It is the main point: the meta can be done at the > lower level. Machines can refer to themselves in the 3p way, and by > using the Theatetus' definition we get a notion of 1p which provides > some light on the 1//3 issue. But Gödel does not show this. The meta-level can only be embedded at that level on the *meta-level*. Apart from this level, we can't even formulate representation or embedding (using the axioms of N - except on another meta-level). You act like Gödel "eliminates" the meta-level, but he does not do this and indeed the notion of doing that doesn't make sense (because otherwise the whole reasoning ceases to make sense). Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> You just use fancy words to obfuscate that. >> It i#s like saying "study the bible for scientific education (you >> just don't >> understand how it adresses scientific questiosn yet)". > > No reason to be angry. It is the second time you make an ad hominem > remark. I try to ignore that. I am not angry, just a little frustrated that you don't see how you ignore the main issue (both in our discussions and you paer), while acting like you are only showing rational consequences of some belief. I have said nothing about you, actually you seem to be a genuine, open and nice person to me. I am just being honest about what you appear to be doing in your paper and on this list. It is probably not even intentional at all. So, sorry if I offended you, but I'd rather be frank than to argue with your points which don't even adress the issue (which is what perceive as being obfuscation). Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I work in a theory and I do my best to > help making things clear. You don't like comp, but the liking or not > is another topic. Well, I am not saying your being *intentionally* misleading or avoiding, but it certainly appears to me that you are avoiding the issue - perhaps because you just don't see it. You are defending your reasoning, while always avoiding the main point that your reasoning does either depend on unstated assumption (we are already digital, or only the digital part of a substitution can matter), or rely on a vague (practically digital substitution) or contradictory (purely digital substitution, which is not possible, because purely digital is nonsense with regards to matter) premise. The same goes for the derivation of points of view. You just derive abstractions, while not adressing that abstractions of points of view don't necessarily have anything to do with an actual point of view (thus confusing your reader which thinks that you actually showed a relation between *actual* points of view and arithmetics). It doesn't matter whether I like COMP or not. I don't find it a very fruitful assumption, but that's not the issue. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34406752.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.