Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : Dmitry A. Kazakov
Date : Fri Aug 19 2005 03:28 pm

On 19 Aug 2005 03:22:13 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2005 04:32:05 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And even if there were one, neither fuzziness nor randomness
>>>>>> can be expressed in a deterministic system without some
>>>>>> incomputable elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they are incomputable by *any* means, right?
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting question. It depends on the hardware. We don't know
>>>> if the Universe can offer us anything beyond Turing machine.
>>>
>>> But the turing machine is a theoretical machine, it is not the universe
>>> that constrains it (in terms of physics) but the maths, and that is
>>> only constrained by the wit of man.
>>
>> But computer is a physical object. You can build it of atoms, you cannot do
>> it out of thoughts.
> 
> A turing machine is not.

Do you mean infinite band?

>> Many people strongly believe that the physical world is
>> equivalent to a giant FSM, which is even weaker than a TM.
> 
> TM?

Turing Machine

>> 2. Not that I would insist on it, but it is thinkable that the minimal set
>> of axioms required to adequately describe what's going on [by means of our
>> logic] could be bigger than the number of the states of all our brains.
> 
> Goedel would imply that the set of axioms required for the system to be
> complete is unbounded, if the states of our brains are finite, then we
> cannot 'know' everything.

That is not required. The question is whether we could "know" physical
world and ourselves there. Provided that somebody would define what does it
mean to "know". (:-))

>>> Would it be capable of belief in the absence of formal proof? Could it
>>> discern the truth?
>>
>> An extended Turing test, a capability to believe in irrational as a
>> criterion of intelligence? (:-))
> 
> irrational may be strong....though people often believe irrational
> things.....unprovable certainly.
> 
> so it is reasonable to believe in god
> it is reasonable to not believe in god
> it is irrational to assert that you know the answer......it would be
> harsh on the proponent of aethiesm as a fact to assert that that made
> him unintelligent!

Atheism is a religion, as irrational as any other! (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

.