Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.physics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!genmagic!bug.rahul.net!a2i!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Godel: Is it too obvious to understand?
Message-ID: <jqbDCrsoq.A6t@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3vjkj6$adp@mtnmath.com> <3vn34n$klt@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <3vqnpb$7h3@mtnmath.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 05:02:49 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.physics
Lines: 26
Sender: jqb@netcom22.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:13535 comp.ai.philosophy:31274 sci.physics:132899

In article <3vqnpb$7h3@mtnmath.com>, Paul Budnik <paul@mtnmath.com> wrote:
>Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) wrote:
>
>The only process that
>can avoid Godel limits is a nondeterministic one that explores
>an increasing variety of alternatives. This may seem to be
>random but it is not. The simplest solution is to explore all
>possible alternatives but that is extremely inefficient.
>Pseudo randomness can be helpful in sampling the state space
>of possibilities and then amplifying those that seem to work.
>Pseudo randomness in evolution works this way and I suspect there
>are similar pseudo random processes in our thinking to select
>from a variety of equally plausible alternatives.

I would urge you to reconsider.  There is no basis on which to argue that
nondeterminism or pseudorandomness can defeat Goedel.  NDTMs and TMs are
formally equivalent, and pseudorandomness is particularly trivial to implement
in a TM.  All such mechanisms are subject to Goedel contraints.  On the other
hand, if the contents of the tape are scribbled by QM processes, any
particular sequence might show up in one of Everett's multiple worlds.


-- 
<J Q B>

