**From:** Marc Geddes (*m_j_geddes@yahoo.com.au*)

**Date:** Sun Jan 22 2006 - 20:38:00 MST

**Next message:**Phillip Huggan: "Re: Dynamic ethics"**Previous message:**Mitchell Porter: "Re: Why invest in AGI?"**In reply to:**Philip Goetz: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Next in thread:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Reply:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- Philip Goetz <philgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:

*> On 1/21/06, Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes@yahoo.com.au>
*

*> wrote:
*

*> >
*

*> > Let's just say that that I see no reason why
*

*> reality
*

*> > should be 100% consistent (in mathematical terms).
*

*> > Suppose mathematics was not in fact the single
*

*> unitary
*

*> > thing that mathematicians think it is? Suppose
*

*> that
*

*> > there are in fact several different kinds of
*

*> > mathematics needed to fully capture reality
*

*> > ('dualities' is the technical term) and the
*

*> different
*

*> > kinds of math are not totally consistent with each
*

*> > other?
*

*>
*

*> Um... the fact that math works, and it has for
*

*> thousands of years, and
*

*> if it were as you suggest, math in the world would
*

*> be inconsistent and
*

*> not work. 2+2=4, not 5.
*

*>
*

*> Suppose you take the world of people who understand
*

*> math better than you do?
*

*> Suppose you refrain from pestering SL4 with ideas
*

*> that you know are
*

*> not welcome here?
*

*>
*

*> - Phil
*

*>
*

Ben Goertzel's the math whiz here. He just

acknowledged my idea was a theoretical possibility.

And by the way, my own understanding of math is

actually quite reasonable (studied math at Auckland

University).

A math system doesn't have to be 100% consistent to

work, just highly consistent. For instance there's no

reason to believe that the human brain runs on a

formal system which is 100% consistent, yet obviously

we all still get along in the world quite well. The

same could be true of reality itself. Just suggesting

an intriguing possibility.

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last day”

____________________________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! News: Get the latest news via video today!

http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/

**Next message:**Phillip Huggan: "Re: Dynamic ethics"**Previous message:**Mitchell Porter: "Re: Why invest in AGI?"**In reply to:**Philip Goetz: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Next in thread:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Reply:**Daniel Radetsky: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "Re: My definitions of Intelligence, Consciousness, Mathematics and Universal Values"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT
*