3 ms·
I think Penrose is handwaving to try and have it both ways: he's saying the brain obeys physical laws, but that it does not embed a formal computational model.
by Analemma_ 9y ago
I think Penrose is handwaving to try and have it both ways: he's saying the brain obeys physical laws, but that it does not embed a formal computational model. But that's impossible: the second is a logical consequence of the first.
- manyoso 9y ago"But that's impossible: the second is a logical consequence of the first." No, it is not. It is far from proven that universal physical law can everywhere be simulated by a Turing machine. If you had proof of that you'd be up for a Nobel. So publish your paper or perhaps consider that Roger Penrose is not an idiot and you might not know what you are talking about.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gpderetta 9y agoIt is not proven and possibly it can never be proven. But it can be disproven, and given the success of the Church-Turing thesis, I would say that the burden of proof rest on those that claim that a system more powerful than a Turing machine exist.
- manyoso 9y agoFair enough, but that is a far cry from 'logically impossible' which the parent comment explicitly stated.