Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBq2Hv.BCF@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3u3vkr$bn7@agate.berkeley.edu> <3u48ri$o9v@netnews.upenn.edu> <3u4mju$38@agate.berkeley.edu> <3u5pgj$oba@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 20:05:55 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Lines: 31
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30203 sci.logic:12417

In article <3u5pgj$oba@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <3u4mju$38@agate.berkeley.edu>, Edward Faith <epfaith@aol writes:
>>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) wrote:
>>]In article <3u3vkr$bn7@agate.berkeley.edu>, Edward Faith <epfaith@aol writes:
>
>>]Goedel's theorem places a limit on formal proofs.
>>]>>It says nothing about informal proofs.
>
>>]Other than a machine not having them, you're right, it says nothing.
>
>>I guess I didn't read the proof carefully.  Could you point out the
>>part where it talks about informal proofs?
>
>Machines don't have informal proofs, period.  You can write a program
>that simulates them to some extent, but deep down, it's all 1s and 0s,
>following a strictly formal pattern.

And deep down, humans are chemical and/or quantum processes following a
strictly probabilistic pattern, so they don't have informal proofs, either.
Perhaps there's some flaw with such naive reductionism?

We know that machines (is this just *any* machine, Wiener, or only certain
sorts of machines?) don't have informal proofs for the same reason we know
that Data can't use contractions.

[Zeleny, do you suppose that Wiener is capable of "vigorously defending"
his reductionism without resorting to "vituperation and obloquy"?]
-- 
<J Q B>

