> "All I have to do" is correctly correlate how what I say now
> relates to how I might ever halt in the future; I am performing a
> computation that must not terminate. If what I say now can cause me
> to halt in some possible future, I have a problem now, and must adjust
> what I am saying now to avoid actually arriving in such a future where
> I halt.
Since any evocation of halting in around here seems to make us run
in circles, scream and shout:
We already solve this problem anyway.
Almost anybody on this list has been in the dualistic position of
wearing the pager, and preventing the pager from going off in the
first place.
Draw the lines the correct way, and the reason why your pager is
going off is attributable to halt, each and every time. You can
invent more complicated cases if you like, but you can always squish
it back into the world of halting versus not.
Cracking the general case of halting is obviously completely
unreasonable. But that's *not* what we're trying to do. Just ask
different questions already.
Halting in the way we really care about it just so happens to be
all about an observable world that we express beliefs about. Didn't
we already have to deal with the problem of an observable world that
we express beliefs about to talk about our problem elsewhere?
So rather than going "OMG, WTF HALTING!", let's focus on the
observable world that we express beliefs about, and then perhaps
return to halting?
_______________________________________________
lssconf-discuss mailing list
lssconf-discuss@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss
