**From:** Marc Geddes (*marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz*)

**Date:** Mon May 31 2004 - 02:09:33 MDT

**Next message:**Giu1i0 Pri5c0: "Re: I am not sentient"**Previous message:**Marc Geddes: "Eli's new summary of his Friendliness theory is now on Wiki"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote: >

*>
*

*> I know what you mean about randomness, Eli. I tried
*

*> a long time to show
*

*> that the concept of randomness is mathematically
*

*> inconsistent, but just
*

*> wound up with various variants of Godel's Theorem
*

*> instead!
*

*>
*

*> The real mystery here, to me, is that introducing
*

*> such whacky concepts
*

*> as uncomputable numbers appears to drastically
*

*> improve the elegance of
*

*> our theories about the physical world. So, the
*

*> physical world
*

*> apparently is a finite computational-type system --
*

*> yet to model some of
*

*> the more basic aspects of it, it's apparently most
*

*> convenient to assume
*

*> these uncomputable entities (like "truly random
*

*> numbers"). Very weird.
*

*> Yet inarguable: for instance, ordinary
*

*> differentio-integral calculus,
*

*> resting on the implicit assumption of uncomputable
*

*> numbers, is a lot
*

*> more elegant for making physics calculations than
*

*> "computable calculus"
*

*> that does the same thing using only computable
*

*> numbers.
*

*>
*

*> Making consistent but Godelishly-weird mathematical
*

*> models of the
*

*> unmeasurable and nonexistent appears to be a great
*

*> strategy for
*

*> understanding the measurable and existent.
*

*>
*

*> And this is a different point from the weirdness of
*

*> quantum
*

*> probabilities.
*

*>
*

*> Weird universe, huh?
*

*>
*

*> Oh wait a minute -- maybe the problem is with our
*

*> brains? ;-p
*

*>
*

*> -- Ben G
*

*>
*

Well, I doubt that it is correct to talk about

uncomputable 'entities' as such. The way I interpret

it is simply that there is an infinity of entirely

computable entities. Any apparent 'uncomputability'

is simply an artefact or 'illusion' which arises when

one wrongly attempts to treat an infinity as an

entity.

If you have some broad class of well defined

mathematical problem people might call it

'uncomputable', but any particular finite sub-set of

that class will in fact be entirely computable. So

there is really no constructive way of defining an

'uncomputable' entity. All mathematical entities with

objective existence are computable. It is simply the

case that there is an infinite number of such entities.

=====

"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."

- Gen. John Stark

"The Universe...or nothing!"

-H.G.Wells

Please visit my web-sites.

Science-Fiction and Fantasy: http://www.prometheuscrack.com

Science, A.I, Maths : http://www.riemannai.org

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

http://au.movies.yahoo.com

**Next message:**Giu1i0 Pri5c0: "Re: I am not sentient"**Previous message:**Marc Geddes: "Eli's new summary of his Friendliness theory is now on Wiki"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT
*