You’re misunderstanding the implications of both the halting problem and Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem.
What Turing and Gödel independently proved is that a human observer can (theoretically) always have insights about mathematics and programming that are incomputable. That is, you cannot program or axiomatize or formalize or digitize everything that a mind can do. Period.
Analog computers are sufficiently different from digital systems to potentially emulate brain activity. But digital (discrete) methods are probably too constrained.
What Turing and Gödel independently proved is that a human observer can (theoretically) always have insights about mathematics and programming that are incomputable. That is, you cannot program or axiomatize or formalize or digitize everything that a mind can do. Period.
that is not what either of them proved. like… at all
You will find what I said in any philosophy of mathematics textbook dealing with the subject. In fact, I am paraphrasing the Oxford logician Joel David Hamkins.
You’re welcome to also read Shapiro’s famous paper for a rephrasing. These results have been well understood for half a century, although because the implications are ultimately metaphysical and not mathematical, we can’t be sure of the wider consequences, if any.
Going through some of the related paper abstracts, including speculative comments by Gödel: this is pure philosophy. Nothing that is set in stone. Which now points me back to my initial statement, where we can discuss all we want, but in the end it’s philosophy. Not “hard” (“provable”) science
There can be no enumerable list of axioms for the true statements of mathematics. No computational procedure could exist to determine whether propositions are valid, provable, or even equivalent. And no matter how you formulate the number-theoretic axioms, a mathematician would always have insights (for instance, about whether a Diophantine equation has a solution) that are both clearly “true” and obviously unprovable. This holds true for all digital systems.
Here is what we don’t know for sure:
The metaphysical implications.
Your distinction between science and philosophy is incorrect. Science is inductive and abductive. It can’t “prove” things. It’s not deductive. Mathematics and philosophy can prove things.
Philosophy also determines the formal systems we use as a basis of reasoning, for instance, in science.
I really don’t see what either gödels or turnings theorems have to do with it
All they (basically) tell you is that you can’t tell if a computation will guarantee to halt , and that you can’t proof everything with math
It’s not excluding consciousness on a digital basis. Unless you already prerequisite some special property of consciousness to begin with
You’re misunderstanding the implications of both the halting problem and Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem.
What Turing and Gödel independently proved is that a human observer can (theoretically) always have insights about mathematics and programming that are incomputable. That is, you cannot program or axiomatize or formalize or digitize everything that a mind can do. Period.
Analog computers are sufficiently different from digital systems to potentially emulate brain activity. But digital (discrete) methods are probably too constrained.
that is not what either of them proved. like… at all
You will find what I said in any philosophy of mathematics textbook dealing with the subject. In fact, I am paraphrasing the Oxford logician Joel David Hamkins.
You’re welcome to also read Shapiro’s famous paper for a rephrasing. These results have been well understood for half a century, although because the implications are ultimately metaphysical and not mathematical, we can’t be sure of the wider consequences, if any.
ah, now we’re getting somewhere.
Going through some of the related paper abstracts, including speculative comments by Gödel: this is pure philosophy. Nothing that is set in stone. Which now points me back to my initial statement, where we can discuss all we want, but in the end it’s philosophy. Not “hard” (“provable”) science
Here is what we know for sure:
There can be no enumerable list of axioms for the true statements of mathematics. No computational procedure could exist to determine whether propositions are valid, provable, or even equivalent. And no matter how you formulate the number-theoretic axioms, a mathematician would always have insights (for instance, about whether a Diophantine equation has a solution) that are both clearly “true” and obviously unprovable. This holds true for all digital systems.
Here is what we don’t know for sure:
The metaphysical implications.
Your distinction between science and philosophy is incorrect. Science is inductive and abductive. It can’t “prove” things. It’s not deductive. Mathematics and philosophy can prove things.
Philosophy also determines the formal systems we use as a basis of reasoning, for instance, in science.
agreed
and here I disagree
Edit: aww, baby doesn’t like the philosophy of being disagreed with and blocked me. Should probably go back to kindergarten instead of college
Yes, of course you can prove things in philosophy. Have you ever heard of syllogistic reasoning? The basis of… you know… proofs?
All science is philosophy. Hence the P in PhD. Not all philosophy is science. Hope that helps.