Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : Mark Nicholls
Date : Fri Aug 19 2005 08:11 am


Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 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... (:-))

Mine don't span German at all.

OK, but yes, I don't remember seeing a Turing machine, even with a
finite tape in the server room, but that doesn't really undermine the
usefulness of them as theoretical machines....i.e. it is the theory
that constrains us as well as the practicality.

>
> >>>> 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* (:-))
>

I'm not sure I believe quantum mechanics, I certainly cannot comprehend
it, and what people say about it, upsets my largely 19th century view
of the universe.....well relativity isn't so bad, so circa 1920.

.