Re: logical paradoxes

From: Traveler (traveler_at_nospam.com)
Date: 08/18/04 

Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:52:52 -0400

In article <sNvUc.269823$a24.142751@attbi_s03>, patty
<pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:

>Traveler wrote:
>> In article <E7tUc.32190$TI1.19831@attbi_s52>, patty
>> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:
>
[cut]
>> I am sensing hostility. In what system is a sentence not a sequence or
>> a sequence not temporal?
>
>True a sentence can be decomposed into a sequence of symbols. But a
>sentence can be referred to by citing the address at which we stored the
>entire sentence.

Referring to the address or location of the first character (or first
bit of the first character) in a sentence is not the same as referring
to the sentence.

>There is no problem with self reference here
>whatsoever.

Agreed. But there is no reference to the sentence that I can see. A
sentence makes no sense unless it is parsed, and that is a temporal
process.

>An agent can cop an attitude toward the entire sentence
>stored at a particular address.

But this is a fallacy. Only a single character is stored at the
address. But assuming you had a computer that had a very bid word size
that could store the entire sentence at one address, a reference can
only point to the first bit of the first character in the sentence.

>If that agent originally assumes the
>sentence to be true,

Logically speaking, a sentence is never true nor false. True and false
are representable by binary, single-bit flags, not by an entire string
of bits. A discrete sensor's state may be true or false. The result of
a comparison may be true or false. But not a sentence.

>then after it reads the sentence it must assume it
>is false, etc.

It is not the sentence that is false. It is something else in your
brain that is triggered by your internal scanning of the sentence. A
sentence is a temporal sequence and there is no denying it, a trillion
logicians and other mathematicians jumping up and down and foaming at
the mouth notwithstanding.

>Assume that P is "The light is on" and that the light
>is on. Then it is child's play to write an algorithm that will read my
>sentence and turn the light off, then on, then off .... That would be
>one system that puts a lie to your assertion.

The above is incorrect for the reasons that I have given.

>>>>As an aside, the same temporal/causal considerations can be used to
>>>>invalidate Godel's famous Incompleteness Theorem. Although Godel
>>>>occupies an important place in the parthenon of the cult of modern
>>>>science, the man was a total nut case. Godel is one of the most often
>>>>quoted mathematicians of the world, yet his work is completely
>>>>inconsequential. But then again, what can one expect from a believer
>>>>in time travel. As I write somewhere on my site, the only thing
>>>>incomplete was Godel's frontal lobe.
>>>
>>>It seems that every time i quote a sentence like that i get that same
>>>response. I wonder if adding the P (pay load) changes Godel's theorem any.
>>
>> Would you care to provide examples of responses similar to mine that
>> were made by others in reply to this quote of yours?
>
><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6e2f1d09.0408030252.66b906bd%40posting.google.com>

Funny but this link points to a post by Sizemore where he is defending
Godel. How can you compare Sizemore's post to mine since he and I hold
opposite viewpoints on the matter? I think Godel was a howling lunatic
and a retard. Just one man's opinion. That so many people have taken
to worshipping him is a sad commentary on modern philosophy. The fact
that Godel came out and announced to the world that the general theory
of relativity allows time travel to the past, puts him squarely in the
crackpot territory, AFAIC.

[But then again, Many people think that I am a crackpot. So take your
pick. I don't mind being called a crackpot by time travel believers.
In fact, I relish it.]
 
>>>>Having said that, pardon me while I fetch my flame retardant suit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No need, im hot, but i won't set you on fire :)
>>
>>
>> Yep. It's hostility, alright.
>
>Only in your eyes, my friend, only in your eyes :)

Ok. I'll take back my erroneous observation.
Louis Savain

Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html

Falsifiable Predictions:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/predictions.html

Relevant Pages