Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : Dmitry A. Kazakov
Date : Fri Aug 19 2005 04:36 pm

On 19 Aug 2005 05:42:26 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote:

> 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"?

"tape", sorry. It's difficult to switch between German and English, it
makes my finite state machine even more finite... (:-))

>>>> 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.

In which we believe that they are convenient, consistent, observed,
believed in and so on ad infinitum.

The world of beliefs is as discontinuous as quantum mechanics. Which is the
only way to stop bad recursion, I *believe* (:-))

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

.