|
Hi John,
Good question: Do I "prefer
the unprovable proof or the hypothetical reality?"
Unfortunately, an
"unprovable proof," or a "hypothetical reality" are, to me at least,
self-copntradictory, hence meaningless - (as you meant them to be).
However, I suspect that "unprovable
proofs" and "hypothetical realities" are acceptable to
some. For example, in one version of an
unprovable, unfalsifiable, hypothetical reality, I can't tell if I'm a computer
simulation or if I'm in the "real" universe.
If it hasn't been proposed before, let me
offer the "Norman Hypothesis." It's probably not
falsifiable or provable, but I haven't let that slow me down.
In the Norman Hypothesis, there is no
"real" universe. Turing Machine X simulates Turing Machine Y, which
simulates Turing Machine Z, . . ., which simulates Turing Machine
X.
But seriously, folks, I'm not
mocking anybody who reads this list. You people have taught me a
lot, and my over-taxed brain is full of sore muscles. I'm grateful, if
annoyed I can't understand it with less effort.
Norman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message ----- From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not* Norman, I wonder which one do you prefer: The unprovable proof, or The Hypothetical reality? John M |
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not* Norman Samish
