Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:21:03 -0400
"R. Srinivasan" <sradhakr@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Consider a proposition P about a future contingency that is based on
the decision taken by a human being X. A human being has free will
if and only if that proposiiton is fundamentally undecidable right
now, in the sense that we human beings (including X) cannot ever
hope to have a theory (right now) that correctly decides P.
So if X acts on every choice by flipping a (metaphysical) coin, then X
is free. Great! What a comfort that must be for X!
--
Jesse F. Hughes
Mama: Do you need help?
Sir Quincy: Nay, I'm a big knight. Knights don't need help with
pee-pee.
.
- References:
- Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- From: Marshall
- Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- From: Rupert
- Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- Prev by Date: Re: Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and omega-consistency
- Next by Date: Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- Previous by thread: Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- Next by thread: Re: Incompleteness vs. Mechanical Reasoning
- Index(es):
Loading