Oh! And I forgot to mention my other favorite *vein* of possible counter examples: Hewitt's "Inconsistency Robustness". I particularly like John Woods' contribution to attempts to formalize abduction.
On 10/24/18 2:49 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > My opinion is probably the least credible. But here it is anyway. Rosen's > achievement was just like every other theoretician's achievement. He > formulated hypotheses that *may* be testable. The Mikulecky paper Steve > posted states one of them fairly well: > > Mikulecky wrote: >> The functional component itself is totally dependent on the context of the >> whole system and has no meaning outside that context. This is why reducing >> the system to its material parts loses information irreversibly. This is a >> cornerstone to the overall discovery Rosen made. It captures a real >> difference between complexity and reductionism which no other approach seems >> to have been able to formulate. This distinction makes it impossible to >> confuse computer models with complex systems. > > Rosen's formulation of the hypothesis has led to a number of attempts to find > a counter example. And those attempts have been much criticized. Whatever > one's conclusion about those attempts, the hypothesis is clear *enough* to > allow those attempts to be in good faith. (E.g. Chu and Ho "A Category > Theoretical Argument against the Possibility of Artificial Life".) > > Rosen's is yet another way to formulate (and perhaps formalize, if you > believe Louie's work) the strong AI question. E.g. can human mathematicians > do math in ways computers cannot? Personally, my favorite attempt at a > counter example is Feferman's "schematic axiomatic formal systems". But the > same basic hypothesis has resulted in some fun things like Penrose's > objective reduction and Homotopy Type Theory's unification theorem. Does > Rosen's formulation do any more work than the others? Probably not. But if > it's true that science doesn't produce answers, only more questions, then > Rosen's work qualifies because it's produced some interesting questions (or > ways to ask the same question). Whether that body of questions is > interesting to any particular person is a matter of their taste and history. > > > On 10/24/18 2:01 PM, John Kennison wrote: >> I guess I have missed much of the conversation on this issue. Maybe my >> comments are way too late, but I would appreciate it if someone with a more >> positive view of Rosen would try to explain what it is that Rosen achieved. > > -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
