-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Günther Greindl wrote: > I still do not see why nature should not be mathematical, or even > (stronger) computable.
I agree. > The principal claim of Rosen - that life is not mechanically emulable - > is shown to be false by the second recursion theorem > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27s_recursion_theorem > > (which shows that one can mechanically replicate; repair is then a > matter of error correction) I disagree. I don't believe that theorem refutes RR's claim, which I prefer to think of as "non-well-founded sets cannot be realized". But, I admit that I'm not as well-versed in computability as I should (or would like to) be. How does the recursion theorem refute RR's claim? Can you be a bit more precise? - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -- Barry Goldwater -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIDPlEpVJZMHoGoM8RAv79AJ0ZmUvLt0ztKw7++SIaaOSp5tM3YwCfTEBE iFphEkKMU8yh2JaXkwNlrnw= =wR98 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
