Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Lucas & Penrose's use of Godel
Message-ID: <DBM7xq.H5o@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <DBD1Kp.21A@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3tr9ji$em9@netnews.upenn.edu> <DBKGHJ.G5n@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3u0ftu$44@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 18:13:01 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30010 sci.logic:12254

In article <3u0ftu$44@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <DBKGHJ.G5n@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>You are right, this is the question of interest. Now, are you
>>claiming that chemical processes (and immunological infulences)
>>cannot be modelled digitally? Perhaps Goedel proved this?
>
>They can be modelled up to a point.  Non-computable aspects of QM are
>known, as first proven by Pour-El and Richards.  The theory of quantum
>gravity (you know, Penrose's pineal gland) is also very likely going to
>be non-computable through and through, as pointed by Geroch and Hartle.

What reasons (except ideology) do you have to think that modelling "up to
this point" is not enough? If you are going to fall onto non-computability
at QM level, why not to say this outright instead of setting up a smoke 
screen of "chemical processes (and immunological influences)"?

>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
