Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Welcome-Jim-tp526087p526100.html
Well, I mostly thought you might like the turn of phrase...
There's another one I like of a similar kind, the observation that the
conclusion of all proofs, the little triangle of dots that some refer to as
the statement "therefore" actually means "... and so I can't think of
anything else...". Every step of a proof is a repetition of the fallible
human act of "and only this follows"... well unless you think of something
else. For any self-consistent model, a way to think of the inconsistencies
it entails is to look at how it is embedded into the physical world and all
it's loosely connected working parts.
Phil Henshaw???????????????????
??? ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040? tel: 212-795-4844?????
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com?????explorations: www.synapse9.com??
?in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a century?of
thought now takes just five weeks?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:30 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> G?nther Greindl wrote:
> > I still do not see why nature should not be mathematical, or even
> > (stronger) computable.
>
> I agree.
>
> > The principal claim of Rosen - that life is not mechanically emulable
> -
> > is shown to be false by the second recursion theorem
> >
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27s_recursion_theorem> >
> > (which shows that one can mechanically replicate; repair is then a
> > matter of error correction)
>
> I disagree. I don't believe that theorem refutes RR's claim, which I
> prefer to think of as "non-well-founded sets cannot be realized". But,
> I admit that I'm not as well-versed in computability as I should (or
> would like to) be.
>
> How does the recursion theorem refute RR's claim? Can you be a bit
> more
> precise?
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough
> to take it all away. -- Barry Goldwater
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFIDPlEpVJZMHoGoM8RAv79AJ0ZmUvLt0ztKw7++SIaaOSp5tM3YwCfTEBE
> iFphEkKMU8yh2JaXkwNlrnw=
> =wR98
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org