[HN Gopher] Kurt Godel, his mother and the argument for life aft...
___________________________________________________________________
Kurt Godel, his mother and the argument for life after death
Author : Hooke
Score : 77 points
Date : 2024-01-05 21:13 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aeon.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (aeon.co)
| pmarreck wrote:
| Hopefully as an FYI that is free of too much skeptical criticism
| (I mean... I actually get it, but I just don't want to deal with
| negativity right now), there's actually a rapidly growing number
| of NDE accounts on YouTube right now. I am putting together a
| playlist of the most compelling ones:
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvnDbwjRqIOkgR1eUMfpn...
|
| Some of these are from well-educated people like doctors, former
| skeptics and at least 1 neuroscientist.
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| NDE is an initialism for "near death experience" here.
| csharpminor wrote:
| I've noticed these near-death-experience videos coming up in my
| recommendations and found it truly odd. They don't seem to have
| anything to do with what I normally watch. I have to wonder if
| they're the top of the funnel for religion campaigns like
| "hegetsus".
| stvltvs wrote:
| Skepticism is indispensable precisely because smart people
| believe dumb ideas all the time. It's our only defense against
| flimflam and bad reasoning.
| mistermann wrote:
| Is this to say that you possess necessarily accurate
| knowledge about the objectively true status on an afterlife,
| or is this more so just standard culture war rhetoric?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I just watched this one:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_IbXrBOnME.
|
| What he described actually sounds a lot like lucid dreaming.
| Even complete with waking up. I am still interested in watching
| a few more of these but I'm getting the feeling that I'll be
| thinking that a lot.
|
| (There also appears to be an unrelated video in the playlist,
| FYI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bzQYKm3xTA.)
| 748 wrote:
| I would strongly assume that a big chunk is made using
| generative AI with the purpose of spreading one particular
| religion, or just making the population more spiritual and
| therefore less opposed to certain changes. With all due
| respect, we don't know everything, but know enough about our
| brain to be fairly certain that there is nothing even close to
| any afterlife, with all respect to people's own beliefs that
| they are entitled to. It is wishful thinking, it makes humans
| feel good, gives them hope and is a pretty significant
| psychological relief, especially given the current mental
| health situation on earth, but what happens after life is
| fairly certain - nothing. I suspect the letters were written
| with the exact goal I have listed above - to give hope, to make
| happy and to give psychological relief. After all, you want
| people you interact with to be happy. If you will tell them the
| truth in cold blood, well, that won't be a very pleasant moment
| and it will lead to sadness. I do the same to be honest. Small
| lies that make people that I care about happy. It makes me
| happy in return. Is it bad? What even is bad? Everyone defines
| bad for themselves. Making other people happy is definitely not
| bad in a system of values where bad is on the opposite side of
| happy. But what do I know.
| Xcelerate wrote:
| Funny this came up. Just today I was reading about a letter Godel
| wrote to von Neumann in 1956 asking him about an idea relating to
| the precursors of P vs NP and Hutter search (https://ecommons.cor
| nell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/46ae...).
|
| Godel was quite ahead of his time. Even though he tended to
| prefer theory over practical applications, it would be really
| interesting to have his thoughts on prediction and induction as
| they relate to the recent advances in machine learning.
| atticora wrote:
| > it would be really interesting to have his thoughts on
| prediction and induction as they relate to the recent advances
| in machine learning.
|
| For a possibly not useless proxy, train an LLM on his oeuvre
| and ask it.
| teacpde wrote:
| I can understand the downvotes, but at the same time it does
| makes sense, especially given the target is a logician.
| mingus88 wrote:
| You'll get an answer with all of the linguistic flavor of
| Godel's texts and absolutely none of his insights or
| reasoning.
|
| LLM is a language model, not Deep Thought from the
| hitchhikers guide.
| atticora wrote:
| It works on embeddings, which are concepts. So it would at
| least be manipulating a similarly weighted network of
| concepts, though much shallower. It would be an answer from
| his literal domain of discourse. It would be evocative
| rather than authoritative.
| piaste wrote:
| What you describe would be literally worse than nothing.
| The use of those concepts would make about as much sense
| as the use of topological concepts in a Lacanian text. A
| typewriting monkey in a trenchcoat.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > For a possibly not useless proxy, train an LLM on his
| oeuvre and ask it.
|
| all major LLMs are likely already trained on his works, so
| you can already ask: "Hi, ChatGPT, pretend to be Kurt Godel"
| cushpush wrote:
| Reflecting deeply on Godel's Completeness and Incompleteness
| Theorems, I'd like to contribute to the discussion. The essence
| of Completeness lies in the notion that a system, constructed
| on foundational axioms (such as facts, truths, or mathematical
| operations), encompasses all possible facts derivable within
| its framework. Interestingly, this completeness paradoxically
| begets contradictions. It implies the existence of 'axiomatic
| islands' - distinct realms of truth where a fact valid in one
| may contradict another in a different realm. Hence,
| Completeness inherently entails contradiction.
|
| On the other hand, Incompleteness, which targets a specific
| subset of all possible truths or derivations, can achieve
| absolute consistency by avoiding these contradictions. This is
| because it deliberately excludes certain 'axiomatic regions,'
| maintaining coherence within its defined scope but at the
| expense of being incomplete.
|
| Godel's genius lay in unveiling the deceptive nature of
| mathematics when navigating these axiomatic territories. His
| theorems present a profound duality: the local context, where
| truths are confined to specific axiomatic systems, and the
| universal context, which can be akin to an 'ultimate truth' in
| spiritual terms. This ultimate truth transcends individual
| systems, offering a broader, more holistic understanding.
| fsckboy wrote:
| TLDR Godel believed we lived in a rational world. "Precisely in
| virtue of the fact that our lives consist in unfulfilled or
| spoiled potential makes him confident that this lifetime is but a
| staging ground for things to come. But, again, that is only if
| the world is rationally structured."
| Detrytus wrote:
| Yes, once you discover limitations of logic you start hedging
| your bets by believing in illogical things :)
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/real-3
| nkjnlknlk wrote:
| > I like Jordan Peterson's evolutionary take on these
| philosophical questions
|
| Why when actual evolutionary biologists disagree with Peterson
| on most of his "takes"?
| fsckboy wrote:
| Peterson's a psychologist, an important field that many
| evolutionary biologists and HNers sadly don't quite
| understand, though they do very good work otherwise.
| some_furry wrote:
| > Just for the record since people can't see it, I had tons
| of upvotes before I added the part about Peterson. All the
| "logicians" here suddenly were not able to like (an
| emotion) the part of my comment that they had previously
| liked :)
|
| Please don't turn an unrelated topic into a flamewar about
| Jorpson
| mistermann wrote:
| > You seem to be a person of faith, there's no arguing with
| people of faith.
|
| Can you describe the methodology you used to determine that
| this is necessarily true, with zero exceptions?
|
| > I just understand the limits of what we can actually
| know...
|
| Ah, a perfectly rational human....this is like the 50th or
| so I've encountered this week!
|
| Careful...faith is fundamental to human consciousness, and
| cultures, it comes in a wide variety of forms, and those
| who suffer from it typically are rendered unable to self-
| diagnose.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Is there a reason we should care about his belief regarding this?
| Putting aside that smart people in one realm are often quite
| irrational outside of their expertise, e.g. Isaac Newton being
| super dedicated to alchemy, Jack Parsons at JPL believing he
| could summon demons, there is also a quite obvious limitation to
| this line of evidence. I have very good reason to believe I'm
| going to survive the next five minutes. That doesn't mean I'm
| going to "survive" in the sense that we care about regarding why
| religions draw people in, that is, even conclusive proof we
| survive past bodily death doesn't make us immortal. An immaterial
| soul that lingers to experience more stuff for another 20 minutes
| hardly makes a difference, but even if we can conclusively prove
| near-death experiences are real, that's all we'd be proving.
|
| Same thing with the ontological argument. Even if you can
| convince yourself the universe must have some kind of intelligent
| creator that made it on purpose, that does not imply this creator
| has any kind of human-intelligible personality and monitors or
| cares what we do, let alone that it must be the Christian creator
| or any other specific religion's idea of what a god is.
| Ironically, my wife put on just this morning an episode of Rick
| and Morty in which Morty gets trapped in the Roy game and Rick
| has to go in and convince everyone they're in a video game and
| are really part of a larger reality, which was meant to be a
| parody of religion. That is, their universe truly did have an
| intelligent creator, but they were NPCs in a video game and the
| larger reality is they were really a 14 year-old boy in the real
| universe. We have no particularly good reason to prefer a priori
| Christianity versus Hinduism versus we're all 14 year-old boys
| trapped in a video game just because we're convinced we have a
| creator and some part of us survives death in this particular
| simulation. Notably, the real Morty is still going to die in the
| real world.
| ffhhj wrote:
| > Is there a reason we should care about his belief regarding
| this?
|
| The scientific method proposes begining with conjectures, have
| Godel's afterlife hypothesis been disproved? Could it be
| disproved? Can it trigger thoughts in an intelligence? Are
| those thoughts valued?
| zvmaz wrote:
| You can posit the existence all sorts of entities as
| "hypotheses that have not been disproved". See for instance
| Russell's teapot [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
| nprateem wrote:
| What's your point exactly? Oh I see, should we care. I don't.
| You can reason it either way.
|
| As for alchemy it's a meditative practice that makes sense if
| you understand it. Where the external alchemists went wrong was
| no one told them what the symbols meant so they thought it was
| a physical transformation of base metals rather than of
| consciousness, which is what it is. In fact, the alchemists
| aimed for direct spiritual knowledge, not faith. From that
| perspective it's perfectly rational.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| What does your second paragraph even mean? I don't mean to
| come across as disrespectful btw. I just honestly don't
| understand what you're trying to convey.
| nprateem wrote:
| It means there's a meditation that is supposed to provide
| direct spiritual realisation. As this involved a
| transformation of consciousness, it was known as alchemy -
| change.
|
| However, historically the instructions were kept secret and
| shared using coded language. All that philosophers stone
| business, changing lead into gold etc. But they were just
| symbols which basically refer to sexual energy and
| consciousness.
|
| Here's an example of some of the symbology from the Taoist
| tradition: https://www.mantakchia.com/inner-alchemy-level-
| iv-lesser-enl...
|
| So, as far as someone like Newton was concerned, a quest
| for direct spiritual experience rather than just belief
| makes sense. Some of us just have to know.
|
| This experience - raising the kundalini underpins most
| major religions IMO. A simple look on reddit should
| convince you this is a very real phenomenon [1]. Gopi
| Krishna is the canonical case illustrating the dangers,
| which is likely one reason the meditation was kept secret.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/kundalini/wiki/warnings
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _A simple look on reddit should convince you this is a
| very real phenomenon [1]_
|
| Interesting, for sure, but some reddit wiki is not
| convincing in any shape or form.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| Math people seem to have this more than other engineering/science
| etc ; math, and this is actual bloody Godel, seems so perfect and
| beautiful that is has to have a creator. Everything else is
| incredibly sloppy (including most software).
| aragonite wrote:
| Well, Maxwell was so impressed by the perfect similarity of the
| hydrogen molecules he concluded that they must have been
| created!
|
| > No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the
| similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies
| continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or
| decay, of generation or destruction.
|
| > None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature
| began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties
| of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the
| existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties
| to the operation of any of the causes which we call natural.
|
| > On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all
| others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well
| said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and
| precludes the idea of its being eternal and self existent.
|
| > Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very
| near to the point at which Science must stop. ... Science is
| incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of
| nothing ...
|
| > ... But though in the course of ages catastrophes have
| occurred and may yet occur in the heavens, though ancient
| systems may be dissolved and new systems evolved out of their
| ruins, the molecules out of which these systems are built --
| the foundation stones of the material universe -- remain
| unbroken and unworn.
|
| > They continue this day as they were created, perfect in
| number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable
| characters impressed on them we may learn that those
| aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement,
| and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest
| attributes as men, are ours because they are essential
| constituents of the image of Him Who in the beginning created,
| not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which
| heaven and earth consist.
|
| https://victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html
| nprateem wrote:
| They never thought of infinite multiverses with random
| variations in each, and survivor bias.
| mingus88 wrote:
| Yeah there is a nice crossover also in religion, where some
| sects have agreed that theories like the Big Bang are not
| incompatible with a creator.
|
| But my initial take on Godel's belief here is that even if he
| is correct, and the order of the universe demands that there is
| more to existence than this, why do Humans get the afterlife?
|
| Parameciums don't have the inherent consciousness or great
| individual potential, so there is a cutoff where beings would
| "qualify" for an afterlife to continue developing their
| potential, as he posits it.
|
| Are lesser apes bound for the afterlife? Are dolphins?
|
| Or are Humans just the first to get here, and we will be
| supplanted by an even more rationally destined species to be
| blessed with the afterlife?
| krapp wrote:
| I think that at the end of the day, every rationalization of
| an afterlife is personal - people believe humans get an
| afterlife so they can assure themselves of life after death.
|
| Of course it's entirely possible for the universe to have
| been designed and still operate under purely naturalistic
| rules, without any hint of supernatural elements, but what
| would be the point of believing that?
| austinjp wrote:
| Oh, now that's a nice twist, if I follow you. A universe
| with a creator, but no afterlife. Or another possibility: a
| universe without a creator, but with an afterlife.
|
| Huh. Don't think I've considered those options before. I'm
| sure some religions have proposed these possibilities
| already, though?
| anonzzzies wrote:
| > But my initial take on Godel's belief here is that even if
| he is correct,
|
| He was/is correct about many things, but not about the
| afterlife. It's just because some people are so lucky to see
| the face of god by deep and hard mental studies, they believe
| there is such a thing. And if you have been told all your
| life that is reality _and_ you 'saw' it, why question it?
| mistermann wrote:
| > He was/is correct about many things, but not about the
| afterlife.
|
| What method did you use to objectively determine whether
| there is an afterlife, in a manner that is impossible to be
| incorrect?
|
| > And if you have been told all your life that is reality
| and you 'saw' it, why question it?
|
| You arrived at this extremely popular yet epistemically
| unsound "fact" entirely independently did you?
| vasco wrote:
| Humans are "special" in the sense that at least in genesis
| god creates humans in his own image:
|
| "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
| likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the
| sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
| over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
| creepeth upon the earth."
|
| More simply, if you're creating a moral system that values
| human life to prevent a number of bad things, it's useful to
| put humans apart from other beings, so that you can justify
| commandments like "don't kill yourselves please" at the same
| time as the people being commanded see all other animals
| killing each other, and themselves need to kill other animals
| for survival. Put more bluntly, how do you get masses of
| uneducated people to not behave by animals? You tell them
| they are special, and definitely not like animals, and you
| hold them to a higher standard.
|
| Most of everything in the bible at least is used as an
| illustrative reason to guide you towards some specific
| behavior. If man isn't made in the image of god and isn't
| special there's a bunch of things in there that get harder to
| demand or explain.
|
| In post modern philosophical thinking, there's a reinvention
| of nature where animals are more "all the same" and should
| have similar rights to humans, should not be killed etc,
| which is part of the wider movement to treat the whole earth
| as our home and to see humans as a part of a wider system
| rather than special.
| imchillyb wrote:
| > ...theories like the Big Bang are not incompatible with a
| creator.
|
| First there was energy-mass, in one place. The laws of
| thermodynamics do not allow such an energy-mass.
|
| The energy-mass is at equilibrium. Then the energy-mass is
| not at equilibrium, and it explodes outward, creating the
| mass-mass and energy-energy that we know.
|
| Now there are laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics, that
| will not allow such an energy-mass to exist.
|
| Where did the laws come from? An external source certainly.
| We know this because the energy-mass was at rest, not
| exploding; no laws.
|
| Now there are laws suddenly. Laws don't make themselves. It
| takes external force to create a law. What was that external
| law-creating force?
|
| I believe it was God with a big G. I have no proof except the
| very laws of the universe that were put into motion when the
| energy-mass exploded.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > ...Everything else is incredibly sloppy (including most
| software).
|
| Clear mind is like the full moon in the sky. Sometimes clouds
| come and cover it, but the moon is always behind them. Clouds
| go away, then the moon shines brightly. So don't worry about
| clear mind: it is always there. When thinking comes, behind it
| is clear mind. When thinking goes, there is only clear mind.
| Thinking comes and goes, comes and goes. You must not be
| attached to the coming or the going.
| knome wrote:
| I don't know. If just following logical consequences of
| elementary school arithmetic leads you to discover that numbers
| have to be two dimensional to work ( in requiring 'i' for
| square roots of negatives to function, and from there 'i' being
| found peppered throughout the rest of our exploration of the
| consequences of numbers ), it might be that all things fail to
| be as simple as we would like.
| teacpde wrote:
| If I read the article correctly, Godel's rationale is pretty much
| "The world is orderly organized, therefore after life is supposed
| to exist"?
|
| I must have read it wrong, because I couldn't see the causality
| at all.
| noncoml wrote:
| If there is afterlife and I die today will I be in the mental
| state I was just before I died?
|
| If so is my grandmother that had Alzheimer's destined to
| experience the eternity in that horrible state?
| networkchad wrote:
| By my understanding the answer according to Christian belief is
| no. Your body is restored to its fully capability when you
| enter the kingdom of heaven.
| erikson wrote:
| Kary Mullis the Nobel award winning inventor of PCR did too. He
| ends his book with this notion.
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| A reminder that even smart people are human and can get caught up
| in irrationality.
| javajosh wrote:
| I rather like to believe that the universe is infinite[1], and
| that the laws of physics change imperceptibly across long
| distances, meaning that our observable part has properties that
| helped life, and intelligent life, evolve[2]. There does seem to
| be a compelling negentropic "urge" present at almost every level
| of physical reality, that complexity accretes over time in a
| manner that almost seems designed[3]. This idea preserves both
| the notion that the universe is rational in some sense, AND that
| we occupy no special place in it. Indeed, one could see the
| biosphere of earth, and humans, as merely data pointing to a
| particular bundle of physical constants in this local region.
|
| I do not believe there is a heaven unless we build one.
|
| 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
|
| 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
|
| 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
| george-in-sd wrote:
| Article doesn't really really explain the proof of god - but a
| version of the proof is here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.4526.pdf
| layer8 wrote:
| > The idea that everything in the world has meaning is, by the
| way, the exact analogue of the principle that everything has a
| cause on which the whole of science is based.' Godel - just like
| Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, whom he idolised - believed that
| everything in the world has a reason for its being so and not
| otherwise.
|
| This is the core mistake, I believe, to assume that causation
| implies meaning, instead of causation just being a logical
| correlation, and meaning being a construction of the human mind.
|
| It's interesting, though, that Godel took his incompleteness
| theorems as an indication that materialism (or naturalism) can't
| be the truth, while still thinking that the world is rational.
| imiric wrote:
| > His rationale for belief in an afterlife is this:
|
| > If the world is rationally organised and has meaning, then it
| must be the case. For what sort of a meaning would it have to
| bring about a being (the human being) with such a wide field of
| possibilities for personal development and relationships to
| others, only then to let him achieve not even 1/1,000th of it?
|
| Far from my petty mind to challenge a great thinker like Godel,
| but I don't follow this line of thinking.
|
| First of all, the world being rational is a property humans
| ascribe to it. On an atomic level matter follows specific rules,
| yes, and we extrapolate a certain order from this on a higher
| level. But I don't see how any of it can be defined as rational,
| or having any sort of deeper meaning.
|
| Even if we assume that to be true, why would that be a reason to
| believe that humans are expected to deliver some sort of
| "meaning" to the universe? And why would that entitle us to
| immortality? This all sounds deeply egotistical.
|
| > Only the human being can come into a better existence through
| learning, that is, give his life more meaning.
|
| I wonder what Godel would think about modern AI. As we have
| found, learning is not a special ability of humans, and can, in
| fact, be simulated. That on its own doesn't grant eternal life,
| though AI certainly has more chances of survival, not being bound
| by our fleshy meat sacks and all.
|
| I don't know. I'm not well read in philosophy, and my only
| exposure to it was during a semester at college, but this
| particular philosophy reads like someone trying to bring peace
| about mortality to their elder mother, and not like a fully
| fleshed out line of thinking. Which is fine. Life is indeed
| strange and confusing, and we should find peace in whatever way
| we can, but maybe there's a reason why these thoughts were never
| made public.
| kevindamm wrote:
| > I wonder what Godel would think about modern AI. As we have
| found, learning is not a special ability of humans, and can, in
| fact, be simulated. That on its own doesn't grant eternal life,
| though AI certainly has more chances of survival, not being
| bound by our fleshy meat sacks and all.
|
| Instead bound by substrate and power grid that are both
| inefficient and minimally redundant. I'd wager more on the meat
| sacks.
| freejazz wrote:
| >First of all, the world being rational is a property humans
| ascribe to it. On an atomic level matter follows specific
| rules, yes, and we extrapolate a certain order from this on a
| higher level. But I don't see how any of it can be defined as
| rational, or having any sort of deeper meaning.
|
| You might not be read in philosophy, but surely you understand
| the word "if"
| voxl wrote:
| Right, the parent attacks the axioms as-if they where the
| argument while simultaneously attacking the source as
| egotistical.
|
| The axioms are of course suspect, but if you give reasonable
| interpretations to them then the conclusion is not far
| fetched as they basically necessitate some kind of creator.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I think, particularly with the advent of AI and modern computer
| technology as a whole, Godel would today be a simulationist of
| Bostrom's cut.
|
| If we ever have the means to accurately simulate reality -
| which we already do, at small scales and with significant time
| dilation - then it becomes almost inevitable that we reside
| within a simulation, as the simulations would vastly outnumber
| physical reality, and therefore the balance of probability is
| that we reside within a simulation - possibly nested within
| many other layers of simulation.
|
| It isn't necessary to simulate an entire universe at utter
| fidelity - just that which is observed - which rather neatly
| ties into the current understanding of quantum mechanics, and
| waveform collapse. It also isn't necessary to do it in
| realtime, as from within the simulation all would appear
| synchronous regardless - aeons could pass between states, while
| the substrate orbits a white dwarf whiling away the cold
| eternity at the heat death of the parent universe.
|
| Whether that implies an afterlife is another matter - perhaps
| we are ephemeral after all - but taking Godel's argument about
| the wastefulness of imbuing consciousness only to then snuff it
| out, half baked, it would stand to reason that any simulator
| would seek to accrue that experience, and use it for other
| purposes.
|
| Perhaps there is only one consciousness, asynchronously living
| every life, every existence. I find this useful to bear in
| mind, as the person to whom I am asshole today may be an aspect
| of me from another iteration.
|
| I prefer to look at this not as woo-woo, or belief, but rather
| logical deduction based on sound premises.
|
| Of course, it may all be bunkum, and we may be alone in the
| universe, and life may indeed be meaningless and fleeting - but
| we cannot know, as that would foul up the simulation no end.
| bardsimpson wrote:
| Rationality is not an inscribed property but rather a natural
| consequence of observing the order in place.
|
| For example, the table of elements expresses the properties of
| integers as inherent to reality. As such, it is rational and
| rationally-ordered.
|
| This is not so much "philosophy" as it is "logic", it is the
| conclusion of philosophy and mathematics and the subsequent
| origin of the computational reality.
| jackbravo wrote:
| > And because the correspondence was private, he did not feel the
| need to hide his true views, which he might have done in more
| formal academic settings and among his colleagues at the IAS
|
| I don't think that being private necessarily means that it is
| showing his true views. In private, we often feel more relaxed
| and express ourselves differently than in public. But in private
| conversations, you can express a point of view in one
| conversation and a different one in another. We often tend to
| accommodate our audience.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_accommodation_th...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-05 23:01 UTC)