Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : Mark Nicholls
Date : Fri Aug 19 2005 06:42 am


Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 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?

? I don't understand "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

of course, sorry.

>
> >> 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". (:-))

!
by know I mean have some concept of "truth" that is the union of
provable truth and those unprovable statements that we believe to agree
with....truth thus becomes relative to the observer! i.e. they are
belief.

Isn't existentialism all about this sort of thing, i.e. we cannot prove
we exist, or that the universe exists, we just choose to believe it
because it's convenient and consistent with our observations.

>
> >>> 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! (:-))
>

quite so....I completely agree......while agnosticism is a fact.....in
fact in that sense they are not mutually exclusive, I can assert that I
am agnostic in the sense I accept there is no proof of the statement
"there is a god", but I *believe* it to be false, thus I am an
aethiest.

So I haven't got a problem with religious people or aethiests, as long
as they have a large dose of agnosticism thrown in....if not I find
both camps equally irrational.

.