-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Günther Greindl wrote: >> How does the recursion theorem refute RR's claim? Can you be a bit more >> precise? > > (I looked > at Rosen's (M,R) Model of the cell and did not see any principal problem > in modelling this computationally -> that is where the 2nd rec. theorem > comes in; indeed, this is necessary and a quite deep insight, Descartes > could not solve this, but of course he did not have modern logic at his > disposal). > > I have not yet seen any substantial claim (except handwaving) coming > from RR's work which goes against traditional mechanist/computationalist > traditions.
[grin] That's not an answer to my query. You said that the recursion theorem _refutes_ RR's claim. You can't just say "I don't see how RR's claim is justified." That's not a refutation. It's just a simple statement that you don't know the justification. How does the recursion theorem refute RR's claim? After we see your refutation, then either: a) I'll be proven wrong, regardless of how I may re-formulate RR's claim or b) the burden will be on me to criticize your refutation. But we have to see your refutation first. Note that I _agree_ with your main point, that life may be mathematical or computable. But I don't see how the recursion theorem refutes RR's claim that "life is not mechanically emulable"? - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com http://meat.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFID3h0pVJZMHoGoM8RAv4jAJ0dT77EtsPdiRQ+6xRoAfPLfpHTWwCggLVK IJECXwIi+Apd3QZJo2Hs+gg= =EGCl -----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
