Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBID1x.8rD@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3tp764$110@netnews.upenn.edu> <jqbDBI4IB.Js5@netcom.com> <3trb7c$em9@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:13:08 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Lines: 157
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29859 sci.logic:12115

In article <3trb7c$em9@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <jqbDBI4IB.Js5@netcom.com>, jqb@netcom (Jim Balter) writes:
>>In article <3tp764$110@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>>Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <jqbDBD193.Iv5@netcom.com>, jqb@netcom (Jim Balter) writes:
>>>>In article <3t0tn4$p32@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>>>>Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>				        How would `human mathematical
>>>>>>intuition' arrive at true statements that could never be calculated
>>>>>>by the above machine?
>
>>>>>Humans have arrived at such statements--continue with your reading of
>>>>>Rucker IATM and you'll see some--and frankly, no one really knows how.
>
>>>>So much gibberish, so little time.
>
>>>So few refutations from the Balter.
>
>>A refutation of "Humans have arrived ..."?
>
>Yes, that would be of interest.
>
>>					     That is gibberish that needs
>>no refutation.
>
>Since when are well-known facts gibberish?  I even gave a reference.
>
>>	         What does "arriving at" consist of?  Give us a definition
>>in a refutable form.
>
>How about "it's been published in a reputable journal".

Oh, wow.  So that's what it takes to know mathematical truths that can't be proven.
Publish them in a reputable journal.  Of course, no robot could do that.
No, Goedel proved that robots are incapable of publishing in reputable journals.
Yeah, the Goedel limitation is that robots have to publish in the National Enquirer.
Yeah, that's it.

Sorry, I can't refute the claim that humans have published things in reputable
journals, so I guess you win this one, Wienerbrain.  I give up.  I really do.

>>>>Goedel-limited robots could "arrive" at such statements, they could "see"
>>>>that they are true, they could "believe" that they are true, they could
>>>>"know" that they are true, they just couldn't *prove* that they are true.
>>>>Just like human mathematicians.
>
>>>Words are cheap.  Do you have any "evidence" that robots could do the
>>>above?  It appears to contradict Goedel's theorem.
>
>>Arriving consists of anouncing "I have arrived".  Seeing consists of
>>announcing "I see".  Believing consists of announcing "I believe".
>>These are all, as David Longley will tell you at length, intensional
>>terms.  Thus Goedel has nothing to say about them.  "Knowing"
>>consists of having a justified belief that happens to be true.
>>Pehaps you have a Goedelian proof that robots cannot have beliefs or
>>justifications.  I'd like to see it.
>
>The belief would be the result of a formal program, ergo, it is subject
>to Goedelizing.

Are you somehow under the bizarre impression that Con(ZF) or anything
published in any reputable journal is a Goedel sentence for the human
mathematical community?

>>                                      "It appears to contradict
>>Goedel's theorem."  is hogwash and shows that you don't understand
>>Goedel or ontology.
>
>You're just a retard.  Nothing personal.  Formal consistent systems that
>are strong enough to contain arithmetic have Goedel sentences.  A robot
>whose "beliefs" are the output of a consistent program it runs would never
>be able to include the Goedel sentence on its belief list.
>
>It's that simple.

Simple to a simpleton.  Of course, humans don't have this Goedel limitation
because they do have the Goedel sentences for their own formal systems on
their "belief list".  Only they aren't that sort of system, so they don't have
such a sentence to have a belief of.  Then what was the justification for the
claim that they don't have this Goedel limitation in the first place, other
than a circularity?

Next you are going to explain why failing to be able to have the Goedel
sentence for their own formal system on their belief list prevents robots from
publishing in reputable journals.

Finally, of course, Goedel says nothing of the sort.  It is only a certain
sort of program, a program devoted to creating a list of mutually consistent
statements, including those that define the system itself, that won't be able
to put the Goedel sentence for its own system on the list.  But Goedel does
not prevent a program from putting its own Goedel sentences on a list; that is
absurd.  In particular, a program that outputs all sequences will eventually
output same.  The issue isn't "a consistent program", whatever that means, it's
a consistent *list*.  And next you are going to tell me that all of your own
beliefs are consistent, and are consistent with your formal definition (of
which, of course, there is none, because you have no Goedel limitations, which
you know by some means other than circularity).

You aren't a retard, you are simply confused, misled, ignorant, blinded by
ideology, and utterly irrational.  Nothing personal, of course.

>>>>"tick, tick, tick, ... arrive!"
>
>>>You know the words, but you don't know the music.  You can't even hum a
>>>bar without tripping, in fact.
>
>>A typical irrational response from the Wienerdude.
>
>What is irrational about pointing out your retardation?

Well, frankly, Wienerdude, it is irrational to bleat on about music and
tripping and retardation in a technical discussion.  I sling this crap back at
you because it seems to be the only way you know how to converse, but it all
seems so silly.  I mean, if you at least had the goods on the technical side I
could repect you as you bleat on, but your arguments never get beyond "formal
systems have Goedel limitations and humans don't seem to".  Of course, no one
disputes the former, and the latter is a claim you seem completely unable to
support.  Publishing in reputable journals, indeed.

>>						     Incessant
>>bleating does not an argument make.
>
>Correct.  So quit bleating.  If something is gibberish, identify what
>is wrong with it.  Uh duh.

"publishing in reputable journals" is gibberish on its face.  It is
self-identifying.

>>				      Humans have arrived at
>>unprovable true statements.
>
>Well, yes.  Sorry you haven't yet.  Don't have a mental breakdown or
>anything. 

Wiener, are you really really unaware that this simply doesn't *express*
anything of interest?  So they have; so they have published in journals.  How,
other than via circularity, does this show that they do not have Goedelian
limitations?

>>			      Like, they got to them and then sat
>>down.  Or they walked right up to them and stopped.  Or something.
>
>Goedel does not record just what he did when he found an unprovable true
>statement.  Getting retardedly sarcastic about it won't change history.

Why, he put it on his list of consistent beliefs, of course.

>>Whatever the something is, you won't find Goedel saying that
>>computational robots can't scream "Eureka!" too.
>
>Why not?  It would contradict his theorem, after all.

You've totally lost it, Wienerhead.
-- 
<J Q B>

