EUREKA! a physical theory of the mind
From: |-|erc (h_at_r.c)
Date: 02/07/05
- Next message: Barb Knox: "Re: and who made god?"
- Previous message: mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk: "Re: does sqrt(2) exist in CM?"
- Next in thread: ken quirici: "Re: EUREKA! a physical theory of the mind"
- Reply: ken quirici: "Re: EUREKA! a physical theory of the mind"
- Reply: Will Twentyman: "Re: EUREKA! a physical theory of the mind"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:04:22 +1000
The following is just an example of 'logical dialog' for the purpose of comprehension analysis.
"YOU CANT PROVE ME"
now, if it has a proof then... its true, but that means
you can't prove it, so that's a contradiction, so it can't have
a proof, but wait a minute.... that's what it said so its true
and you can't prove it.... well even though we just proved its
true, maybe that doesn't count, maybe we proved it in
system 1 and its true for system2.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You'll probably think that's a very poor godel proof, how accurate is not important.
What are the logical steps, what sequence of deductions are made?
1 Some sequence G = "this statement has no proof"
?
?
?
Herc
-- Now compare that to a healthy specimen! www.supernerd.com.au/~gray77/muscle-pic.gif
- Next message: Barb Knox: "Re: and who made god?"
- Previous message: mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk: "Re: does sqrt(2) exist in CM?"
- Next in thread: ken quirici: "Re: EUREKA! a physical theory of the mind"
- Reply: ken quirici: "Re: EUREKA! a physical theory of the mind"
- Reply: Will Twentyman: "Re: EUREKA! a physical theory of the mind"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
