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: <jqbDBK6BI.KK@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3ts2mt$aa3@netnews.upenn.edu> <jqbDBIrMr.HGx@netcom.com> <3tttjh$j5p@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:42:54 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Lines: 56
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29930 sci.logic:12177

In article <3tttjh$j5p@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>						       And if he did have a
>>fully consistent set of beliefs, it could not have included his own Goedel
>>sentence, if he had one.
>
>Who says he had one?  You're assuming your conclusion *again*.

I tire of debating someone with such poor reading comprehension skills.

>>			   But of course you know he didn't have one through
>>"empirical observation".
>
>That seems to be the case.  Any alleged one seems covered by his 1931 paper.

Well, if that were true, it would be an analytical demonstration, not an
empirical one.  His paper makes clear that no such empirical demonstration is
possible.

>>			   But if you did have a Goedel sentence, then either
>>you couldn't 't empirically determine it, or you could and you could publish
>>it, along with your explanation that you can't prove it but you've discovered
>>empirically that it's your Goedel sentence and so you know it's true
>>nonetheless; in fact, since you know it's your Goedel sentence, you can prove
>>it's true by citing Goedel's theorem.  Which is a contradiction,
>
>So your hypothesis, "if you did have a Goedel sentence" is provably false.

Um, no, the hypothesis is "you could ... empirically determine it".  I'm sure
its fun to play these word games, Wiener, but its intellectually dishonest.
Misidentifying the relevant hypothesis may help you win brownie points in your
grand game of "beat the net", but it doesn't get you anywhere in the grander
scheme of reaching the truth.

>Congratulations.
>
>>								  so you cannot
>>empirically encounter your Goedel limitations whether you have them or not.
>
>But fortunately, you've just settled the matter by a proof.

Yes, fortunate for your brownie point count.

>>Unless you're a circle jerk.
>
>You're the one who (a) keeps assuming his conclusion and (b) proves what
>he keeps claiming is false.  Have fun.

My only assertion is that you and Penrose have failed to make your case.
Nowhere have I asserted that Goedel or any other real-world entity has a
Goedel limitation, or that such formalisms as TMs do not, or that a robot
would not.  My position is that the claims offered that such real-world
entities *do not* have Goedel limitations are unsupported.
-- 
<J Q B>

