[FRIAM] recap on Rosen

[phil henshaw]

Well, I mostly thought you might like the turn of phrase...    

There's another one I like of a similar kind, the observation that the
conclusion of all proofs, the little triangle of dots that some refer to as
the statement "therefore" actually means "... and so I can't think of
anything else...".   Every step of a proof is a repetition of the fallible
human act of "and only this follows"... well unless you think of something
else.   For any self-consistent model, a way to think of the inconsistencies
it entails is to look at how it is embedded into the physical world and all
it's loosely connected working parts.

Phil Henshaw                   
    ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave   NY NY 10040  tel: 212-795-4844     
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com     explorations: www.synapse9.com  
“in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a century of
thought now takes just five weeks”


> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:30 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> 
> -----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-----
> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org