Re: PROOF that emulators are impossible

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 05/05/04 

Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 16:00:08 GMT

In sci.logic, |-|erc
<gotchy@beauty.com>
 wrote
on Wed, 05 May 2004 08:45:21 GMT
<BQ1mc.21140$TT.14152@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
> The theory is that events themselves have an existence,

Events *do* have an existence. They register in the brain,
and may leave external evidence (fibers, droplets of blood,
crushed butterflies, scratched paint, etc.)

> history repeats whether its fact of fiction. when you write
> fiction it becomes factual in the future, perhaps not to the letter.

I dunno about the fiction becoming factual, but the fiction does exist.
"The War Of The Worlds", for instance, demonstrably exists (and the
radio version caused a minor panic in 1938).

>
> an event world on a frequency domain. particles interact over
> distances, non locality is factual, we just only understand it
> at microscopic scales.... it works at macro scales and the end
> result is a religious being.

People interact over distances too. We are interacting, for
instance -- and the telephone has existed since about 1870.
>
> Here's a challenge for you, get 12 people admitting they
> believe YOU are the messiah, when you can't maybe you'll
> agree that before you is evidence of paranormal.

So you've got 12 groupies, then?

>
> If you went to an alien planet, assume they have 3
> mathematicians from history who devised, uncountability,
> successor function, unprovable statements.
>
> countable : Canter
> unit : Peano
> unprovable : Godel
>
> What is the probability that the 3 names has a close tie
> in to the theory that they discovered? As close as our three?
>
> Why wasn't "this statement has no proof" Johnsons proof?
>
> Why is the unprovable defined by GODel?
>
> you are truly blind

And you are seeing things.

>
>
> Herc
>
>
> 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.