But thanks to that crashing, *Church thesis remains consistent*. I
would just say An existence of a universal language is not ruled out.
I am ok with you. Consistent (in math) means basically not rule out.
Formally consistent means not formally ruled out, or not refutable.
That is:
Hal,
I lost you 2) - 13): I cannot squeeze the philosophical content into a
physicalist-logical formalism. The 'terms' are naturally vague to me,
cannot follow them 'ordered. The words in your perfect schematic are
(IMO) not adequate for the ideas they are supposed to express: our
language is
Hi John:
My intent is to eventually back fill the compacted description with
additional discussion once I think it is OK. Perhaps that will
help. In that regard I currently want information to be a divisor
and packets of divisors to be a division of the [A-Inf]. I am trying
to avoid the
Stephen,
your concerns echoed in my mind my reply to Hal's ordering the
unknowable in my reply to him today.
[SPK]
Does this inability need to be, itself, Complete?
I would not think so: that would require omniscience. I also do not
rely on 'Leibnitz' or other past geniuses, because
4 matches
Mail list logo
