[FRIAM] recap on Rosen

[glen e. p. ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Günther Greindl wrote:
> I still do not see why nature should not be mathematical, or even 
> (stronger) computable.

I agree.

> The principal claim of Rosen - that life is not mechanically emulable - 
> is shown to be false by the second recursion theorem
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27s_recursion_theorem
> 
> (which shows that one can mechanically replicate; repair is then a 
> matter of error correction)

I disagree.  I don't believe that theorem refutes RR's claim, which I
prefer to think of as "non-well-founded sets cannot be realized".  But,
I admit that I'm not as well-versed in computability as I should (or
would like to) be.

How does the recursion theorem refute RR's claim?  Can you be a bit more
precise?

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough
to take it all away. -- Barry Goldwater

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIDPlEpVJZMHoGoM8RAv79AJ0ZmUvLt0ztKw7++SIaaOSp5tM3YwCfTEBE
iFphEkKMU8yh2JaXkwNlrnw=
=wR98
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----