From: Daniel Radetsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 22 2006 - 21:42:47 MST
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:38:00 +1100 (EST)
Marc Geddes <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ben Goertzel's the math whiz here. He just
> acknowledged my idea was a theoretical possibility.
What he has said is that there is no a priori reason to say you are wrong.
There is also no reason to say you are right. So why should we believe you?
> A math system doesn't have to be 100% consistent to
> work, just highly consistent.
I do not believe there is such a thing as a partially consistent mathematical
system. A system is either consistent or inconsistent, and if it is
inconsistent, it doesn't work.
> For instance there's no reason to believe that the human brain runs on a
> formal system which is 100% consistent, yet obviously we all still get along
> in the world quite well.
I don't think there's reason to believe that the human brain runs on a formal
system period, let alone one which is 'partially consistent,' whatever that
means. What does it mean, anyway?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 20 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT