On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason)
> There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not involve
>> infinities.
> Why do you think so? What algorithm implements purple or pain?
> What make you think that purple or pain don't involve infinities?
> (Also, many algorithm does involve infinities. Machines can provide name
> for ordinals up to the Church-Kleene omega_1^CK ordinal, and they can
> reason in ZF like any of us.
> I don't see why computers cannot beat the humans in the naming of
> infinities, even if that task can be considered as the least algorithmic
> one ever conceived by humans).
I should clarify what I meant by infinities.  I meant there are algorithms
that for computing anything that can be solved which does not require an
infinite number of steps or infinite precision to do so.  So unless
infinite precision or infinite steps are required to emulate brain
behavior, a computer should be capable of expressing all outwardly visisble
behaviors any human can.  (Craig has disputed this point before)


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to