Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (66190)	12/12/2004 3:17:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

If gravity worked on an inverse cube law, etc, then we enter the realm of non-logic because it doesn't. I don't think we would enter any sort of "realm of non-logic". You can apply logic to hypothetical, or even impossible situations. The logic itself stays the same even if the conclusions you come up with are very different. There is no externality. Not without the realm of the four forces of the apocalypse and their rider anyway. The rider being consciousness. Do you believe that there is no reality outside conscious perception of it? Constructing an alternative reality "If gravity went backwards and light went faster and the Planck length physlink.com was shorter" is playing with words, not logic. It's not logic itself, but logic would still apply if those hypthetical alternatives where true. My point was that logic doesn't depend on the speed of light or the nature of gravity or the Plank length. Reality is the arbiter of logic, not a nice turn of phrase and an apparently logical train of thought, even if we all agree with it like a bunch of lemmings. If we all agreed about a specific fact, and that "fact" was actually false, it doesn't mean that logic couldn't be appliedto that fact, merely that logic correctly applied might not result ina true conclusion. "All dogs are blue All things that are blue are cats Therefore all dogs are cats" Is a perfectly logical argument. Its conclusion is false, which is not a urprise because both of its premises are false but it is not illogical despite being false. Any logical argument has to start from something. If the something it starts with is false its not specificly a problem with the logic. tim

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (66190)	12/13/2004 9:16:27 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

The observer observes them and the Goedelian self-referential circle is closed. I hope not. The very point of Kurt Goedel's theorem is that there are no closed, self-defining systems. They always must base themselves on external 'givens' outside of the system itself.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (66190)	12/16/2004 10:31:10 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71178

I just finished the book CW gave me to read: A Society of Minds. It was a pageturner novel- man against machine. I think he figured it would give me a very simplistic introduction to the consideration of where artificial intelligence may be headed. There was lots of discussion about evolution and survival of the fittest. The book makes the point that man's cranial "hardware" was pretty much the same 10000 years ago as it is now, and what has changed is not our actual intelligence, but our access to information, which is increasing at exponential rates. Any meaningful biological evolutionary change takes thousands of years to occur, while the intellectual resources are building faster and faster. At the end, it still came down to a survival of the fittest with the author making the statement that our basic motivating force never changes. Lots of interesting discussion of virtual life and when it is "real" and does it matter. And when does "consciousness" take place. It was fun for someone with no background at all, but way too simple for you guys. On a funnier note, I asked the boys if they had specific books they wanted in their Christmas stacks (I always put together a bunchk of books for each; this gets more challenging every year) and CW sent me the title of one with a note."Yeah, I really want this one, but it's 44.00." It was called: 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice-- summary: An extensive overview of 3D input and output devices, 3D interaction techniques, and 3D user interfaces. I was sure he was joking, but he said, no, Mom! This is the future! I am so hopelessly behind already, that I can't help but wonder if I will be able to function if I live another thirty years. Maybe not. Survival of the fittest.