[FRIAM] beyond finite

[glen]

One of the problems I had with Wolpert's paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03886) was this sentence:

"All proofs in mathematics — all theorems based on Zermelo — Fraenkel Choice (ZFC) set theory, all predicate logics, all category theory — comprise a finite discrete sequence of such statements."

I hiccuped because closed lines on a 2d surface, loops, are not (obviously) a "finite discrete sequence of statements". We've discussed graphical programming languages and hypergraphs and such here before ... even to the seemingly banal discussions of the [de]serialization of things like object-oriented databases. But it seems like Wolpert's relying on an assumed duality between a thing and its serialization. Granted, I've trotted out the parallelism theorem myself. So I'm just as guilty. But when writing about such a large topic, I expected him to place a caveat somewhere in the paper. Maybe I just missed it.

Whatever, in re-learning my prior objections to infinities, I stumbled across this:

"Non-Computable You" by Robert J Marks II
https://discoveryinstitutepress.com/book/non-computable-you/

And, unfortunately yes, it's *that* Discovery Institute <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute>. [sigh] And I'm forced to re-learn my own argument *for* ad hominem (or "genetic" fallacy) and the 5 Ws. Should I read a book by a peri-ID electrical engineer or not? Are my critical skills honed well enough so that after reading such, I'm confident I won't become a glossolalic Petacostal Christian kissing snakes in my kitchen?

Maybe Wolpert's off his rocker giving "hyper-computation" even that little bit of air?

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ