**From:** Warrigal (*ihope127+w@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Fri May 22 2009 - 12:46:58 MDT

**Next message:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Previous message:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**In reply to:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Next in thread:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Reply:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, John K Clark <johnkclark@fastmail.fm> wrote:

*>> His theorems state
*

*>>that there is no set of axioms that can express
*

*>>certain things under which every true statement can be proven.
*

*>
*

*> His proof states that there are true statements (that is to say
*

*> statements where you will never find a counterexample to prove them
*

*> wrong) that cannot be derived from any finite list of axioms.
*

Is that different from what I said?

*>> The analogous statement for physics would be that there is no
*

*>> set of laws such that every phenomenon expressible as a mathematical sentence
*

*>
*

*> The analogous statement for physics would be that there will always be
*

*> observations that cannot be explained by existing laws of physics.
*

If by "observation" you mean "phenomenon expressible as a mathematical

sentence", yes.

*>> The analogous goal for mathematics would be coming
*

*>> up with axioms that imply every statement that can be proven
*

*>
*

*> Huh? If it can be proven then it can be derived from axioms; that’s what
*

*> proven means.
*

That's why I said that this goal is trivial.

*>> Super-intelligent beings do not prove that every possible
*

*>> outcome leads to them being immortal.
*

*>
*

*> I agree, that’s one reason they can’t logically prove they are immortal.
*

Not absolutely, no. I'll give you that.

*>> It turns out that they're Conway's Game of Life.
*

*>
*

*> Then the basic rules of Conway's Game can derive every physical
*

*> phenomenon, including Shakespeare’s Sonnets. However going from the
*

*> fundamental laws of physics to Shakespeare is not a trivial task; a
*

*> computation is a physical process requiring energy and I very much doubt
*

*> there is enough energy in the universe to power a mind to go from
*

*> Conway's Game or String Theory to Shakespeare.
*

Only if you care about absolute proof. If approximations are

sufficient, follow the xkcd 435 sequence: derive Shakespeare from

psychology, psychology from biology, biology from chemistry, and

chemistry from physics. As far as absolute proof goes, it's probably

practically impossible to derive the properties of water from quantum

mechanics, but if approximations are sufficient, it's much easier.

*>> I know what actions I can
*

*>> take that could kill me
*

*>
*

*> No you don’t, not even then. Immortality depends on Cosmology and
*

*> Cosmology depends on more than physics, it also depends on initial
*

*> conditions.
*

Well, I was operating under the assumption that I had seen the entire universe.

--Warrigal

**Next message:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Previous message:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**In reply to:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Next in thread:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Reply:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Is belief in immortality computable?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT
*