manyoso

16 ms·

151.
by manyoso 9y ago
To be clear, I'm speaking of Penrose specifically. Penrose goes no further than Godel. He doesn't add anything to Godel's argument about formal systems and statements. All Penrose is saying is that Turing machines can not be
152.
by manyoso 9y ago
"...statements which are unequivocally true, but which cannot be proved in any known formal system." That.
153.
by manyoso 9y ago
Sigh, they don't claim that. You are also arguing with straw men. I wish people would read what Penrose actually argues instead of just assuming he is an idiot (one of the most brilliant minds of this or any century) because he argues
154.
by manyoso 9y ago
#1 Not easy. Prove it. Show a Turing machine programmed with ZFC that can not be modeled by a Turing machine programmed with PE. You can not do so because Turing machines are universal. The fact that you claim this is easy tells me you do n
155.
by manyoso 9y ago
See Penrose argument. He argues that the fact that our minds are not Turing machines allows us knowledge above and beyond what Turing machines are capable of. I don't think this necessarily entails inconsistency, but replying to his ar
156.
by 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
157.
by manyoso 9y ago
Then I am sorry to say you have no idea what you are talking about. Penrose nowhere claims the human mind is not bound by physical laws. Cite one place where he says anything like this or go home.
158.
by manyoso 9y ago
So your claim is that the Human mind is a physical machine and that computers are also physical machines and thus both are bound to physical laws... and this negates Penrose how? Do you think Penrose disagrees that the Human mind is bound b
159.
by manyoso 9y ago
Lots of folks missing the forest for the trees. Objecting to Penrose' argument on the grounds that it assumes Humans are logically consistent when that is no the case misses the point. The claim is that you can not adequately model the
160.
by manyoso 9y ago
#1 Please show how to program a Turing machine to use "axioms stronger than PA" #2 Please show how to program a Turing machine so that it is not logically consistent at a fundamental level? #3 Are you questioning the viability of
161.
by manyoso 9y ago
Here is the quote from Gödel supposedly supporting this: "So the following disjunctive conclusion is inevitable: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that i
162.
by manyoso 9y ago
Most interesting part was suggestion that Gödel himself agreed with Penrose argument against Strong AI. I think this will be highly contentious.
163.
by manyoso 9y ago
I would pay money to see a video camera of Linus' face reading this article. I think we'd probably get impossible new shades of the color red heretofore unknown to humanity.
164.
by manyoso 9y ago
I am very certain that Linus would read this article and curse the jaw dropping stupidity of the whole endeavor. They've basically taken a tool he wrote to do real distributed source control that can scale and turned it into a cent
165.
by manyoso 9y ago
"It seems that the scope of possible harm has been reduced..." The Judge specifically says in the ruling that a much stronger injunction can come at any point right up to the start of trial if Google is able to find additional evi
166.
by manyoso 9y ago
I think the Judge is very clearly signaling that if any pilfered files were used by Uber that he is intent on getting to the bottom of it. And that all the claims of privilege that Uber has been claiming so far in the expedited discovery is
167.
by manyoso 9y ago
In the expedited discovery done so far Uber has claimed privilege for huge amounts of requested documents. If you read the order, the Judge is signaling that this isn't going to be allowed to continue. One of the reasons he turned down
168.
by manyoso 9y ago
It isn't just the order to return the documents. Uber is compelled by June 23rd for a complete and chronological record of everyone at Uber or on behalf of Uber who discussed LIDAR with Anthony and what they talked about. They have to
169.
by manyoso 9y ago
Contrary, it says that Uber either knew or should have known that he took those 14,000 files and that undoubtedly those files were used by Uber to develop LIDAR. It says that Waymo has shown evidence of trade secret misuse enough to grant p
170.
by manyoso 9y ago
I think Waymo laywers are very happy with the expedited discovery ruling and the order that Uber must make every effort to compel the return of the 14,000 files. This might not have been the bombshell ruling against Uber that they were hopi
171.
by manyoso 9y ago
Look at the new discovery that the Judge is allowing Waymo. In effect, Waymo gets to look at all internal LIDAR development at Uber to see if they can find their trade secrets.
172.
by manyoso 9y ago
Yeah, its not like he gets paid to make smart bets or anything... oh wait!
173.
by manyoso 9y ago
Last few months I have used Zoom, RingCentral, Skype for Business, Google Hangouts, and Gotomeeting. Zoom was best followed by gotomeeting.
174.
by manyoso 9y ago
This is a great rant, but what are the best solutions to this today? Has someone, somewhere solved this or at least well on their way to a solution?
175.
by manyoso 9y ago
A better way to go is port ubuntu-Linux subsystem to QNX 7 like Microsoft did for windows 10. Should be much easier too since QNX is posix compliant. And then QNX Screen <-> wayland integration and you'd have a full fledged desk
176.
by manyoso 9y ago
We are so far from talking about this that your question is nearly meaningless. Quantum computing has not even been demonstrated yet. This "quantum supremacy" is for a highly contrived algorithm and set up that has very little if
177.
by manyoso 9y ago
No, this is the real thing they are trying to achieve.
178.
by manyoso 10y ago
Sounds like he is. The guy still runs the part of Uber's company that is under question here. They could fire him, but they have not. They want their cake - not being penalized for his adverse inference - while eating it too - letting
179.
by manyoso 10y ago
How is that an innovation?! Materialists have been asserting since forever that consciousness arises from the brain and that the brain evolved according to Darwin's laws. What is new in Dennett's viewpoint?
180.
by manyoso 10y ago
It is a critique of the criticism of the review. If the review is wrong and Dennett's point is really just the standard materialistic worldview plus the trivial observation that consciousness evolved according to Darwin's laws, th

More ›