Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>Dear Jesse,
>
> Hasn't Stephen Wolfram proven that it is impossible to "shortcut"
>predictions for arbitrary behaviours of sufficienty complex systems?
>
>http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/
>
>
>Stephen
The paper itself
*Russell,*
*Sounds plausible that self-aware systems can manage this. I'd like to
see this done as a formal system though, as I have a natural mistrust
of handwaving arguments! *
I like it too :).
I think the computational view would help in construction.
*Jesse,
I definitely don't think the two
Bruno,
I have a criticism to your argument for teleportation.
in the third step, Before the teleportation to cities A and B, you're
assuming an uncertainty of first person in appearing in one of those cities.
Suppose it to be A. *Where does this asymmetry come from?* I as the first
person have bee
Le 24-mai-07, à 19:32, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
> Thanks for your patience! , I know that my arguments are somehow
> raw and immature in your view, but I'm just at the beginning.
>
> S1 can simulate S2, but S1 has no reason to believe whatever S2 says.
> There is no problem.
> Hofstadter "
Le 24-mai-07, à 19:48, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Thank you for the information. I understand these parts for the others
> it seems I need to search in archives of the
> list for some keywords that I do not understand. I'm not an old
> member.
No problem. You can always ask
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
>
>*Jesse,
>I definitely don't think the two systems could be complete, since
>(handwavey
>argument follows) if you have two theorem-proving algorithms A and B, it's
>trivial to just create a new algorithm that prints out the theorems that
>either A or B could print out, and in
Bruno, et al.,
There is a CRITICAL FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in
Godel's papers and concept.
If a simpler 'less complete' system - which
-includes- its statements, attempts to make
-presumptive statements- about a 'more complete'
corresponding system ... and its relationship to
the simpler 'base of st
Le 25-mai-07, à 04:12, Russell Standish a écrit :
> I don't think anyone yet has managed a self aware formal system,
I would say all my work is about that. You can interpret Godel's
theorem, or more exactly the fact that machine can prove their own
provability logic, and even guess correctly
Le 25-mai-07, à 02:39, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> On May 16, 8:17 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I take the opportunity that the list is calm to send a first
>> approximation of a possibly extendable post which addresses the
>> beginning of the background needed for the
Hi Russell,
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Overcoming Incompleteness
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:53:59PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> For me the question has alwa
10 matches
Mail list logo
