Stephen P. King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:46:22 -0400
Here is a quote from my last post to Lance as a tentative answer to
> > I
> > understand well the problem that the concept of artificial intelligence
> > has with most, and I find myself in agreement with Searle and Penrose on
> > most issues, but if you could understand the work of Peter Wegner, which
> > is a carefully worked out application of the Chu space concept, you will
> > find that it works!
> "Works" is a strange term. What does it work for? What work does it do?
I am using the word "work" in terms of pragmatic utility! Can
make testable predictions? Can the model allow us to have an intuitive
understanding of the various problems that are addressed?
> > If a model works, that is all that matters. We must not
> > forget that all
> > we can apprehend is merely a finite model of the Universe in itself.
> How do you know this? Is this a "falsifiable" assertion? And what does it
Well, I should be able to apply my requirement to my own
have only time to give a sketch argument. Have you looked at the
Bremermann's Limit link? http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/Bremer_limit.html
Robert Fung has a discussion of it at
The idea is that it is impossible to encode an arbitrary amount
information given a finite amount of mass/energy. If we consider that
the "writing down" process of involved in constructing a model as a
describable as a process itself, we can compare the amount of
matter/energy needed for each.
What is a model? It is a representation that allow some system
information about the "original" and communicate this to others so that
multiple observers can participate and a consensus can be reached. The
Time List is an example of this! :-) The model of a process of
constructing a model is more complex and thus requires more matter that
the original model. (Sorry that I do not have the specific proof of this
If we were to assume that finite entities, such as ourselves,
composed of matter and are able to comprehend more than a finite model
of the Universe, which is by definition infinite (since it must include
all descriptions, e.g. models, of itself) since it is "the totality of
existence", we will generate a contradiction!
If we equate the act of comprehension with the ability to
representation that allows for a meaningful set of inferences about the
properties of the original, then it is obvious that the Universe itself
cannot be modeled in a complete sense by a finite entity since that
would imply (by a diagonalization argument) that the model of the whole
Universe is encodable in a finite amount of matter/energy and this is in
contradiction with the falsifiable Bremermann's limit!
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Lance and Stephen,
> The word "falsifiable" is a difficult one for me. I tried to find it in my
> on-line English-Japanese dictionary, but there is no such word. Instead I
> found the word "falsify" that means: "A falsifies B" is "A proves that B is
> wrong." From this I imagine "falsifiable" means: "A theory T is falsifiable"
> is "There is a possibility that someone is able to prove that the theory T is
> wrong." Is this interpretation correct? Or are there any other and/or deeper
> meanings in the word "falsifiable."
The "A" in your staement to me implies a physical experiment, the "B"
implies a particular measurement that has a restricted interpretation.
> Also I am not sure what is thought as falsifiable in this correspondences
> between you. I.e., I am not sure what is the issue of this arguments. For me,
> the objects that each of you address the word "falsifiable" look different
> between you. Could you explain in the easier and/or more understandable
We will need to discuss this further!
> Best wishes,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lancelot Fletcher <email@example.com>
> To: Stephen P. King <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: <email@example.com>; Paul Hanna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 7:17 AM
> Subject: [time 781] RE: [time 779] Re: [time 778] Re: Noumenon and Phenomenon
> => Mind-Body problem.
> > Dear Stephen,
> > > Here I go again! ;-) We are getting back to the problem
> > > that Vaughan
> > > Pratt addresses in his paper ratmech.ps
> > > (http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#ratmech) The relation between
> > > noumenon and phenomenon is reflected in the mind-body problem to which a
> > > solution is addressed. I am unhappy that the paper is very difficult to
> > > comprehend as it is written in the language of theoretical computer
> > > science, but I am working hard to translate it over for our use.
> > > (BTW, I
> > > understand Lance's objections, but we do need some falsifiability in our
> > > models of the world!)
> > I hope you won't think I am being unfair, but the claim that a model or
> > theory is falsifiable is a strong claim. Indeed, it might be a falsifiable
> > claim with respect to Pratt's paper. Therefore, as proof, I request that
> > you cite at least one falsifiable proposition contained in Pratt's paper
> > or, if you are unable to do so, explain how it makes sense to describe
> > Pratt's theory as falsifiable.
> > Lance Fletcher, President
> > The Free Lance Academy Foundation
> > http://www.freelance-academy.org
> > email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:41 JST