Re:An earlier universe can still be observed today, says Rog...
by pegasus on Thursday October 08, 2020 @02:24AM
(#24716414)
Yes, I'm aware of the criticism and it might be that only a few of his speculations find ground in reality, or even none at all. Still, these dismissals are unfair and rouhghly equivalent to saying that for example, Darwin's "Origin of the Species" boils down to "life-forms are groovy".
Re:An earlier universe can still be observed today, says Rog...
by tildedave on Thursday October 08, 2020 @12:39AM
(#24715872)
As someone who took a number of mathetical logic classes between undergrad/graduate I always found this Gödel-sentence argument on the face-laughable, since the logical inconsistency was so easy to repair. My favorite critique of this was Hans Moravec's dialogue between Penrose and a robot AI, having resurrected his brain long past humanity's extinction: http://www.calculemus.org/MathUniversalis/NS/10/10moravec.ht...
Re:An earlier universe can still be observed today, says Rog...
by theinfinity on Thursday October 08, 2020 @01:53AM
(#24716273)
Penrose has himself replied to this critique (among others): http://www.calculemus.org/MathUniversalis/NS/10/01penrose.ht....
My dismissal of his work on consciousness was based on those grounds. I think my "caricature" was fairly accurate, but if you think different that's fine, if you can elaborate.
The part I forgot above was that I also dismissed it on the basis of math, which is surprising given that Penrose is a greater mathematician than I'll ever be, but his whole reason to evoke "quantum" was that a Newtonian-based brain could not know that a "Gödel sentence" was true, so our brains must be non-Newtonian. It was absurd on the face of it (our brain's belief about statements don't constitute a formal logic), and was also well-criticized by other mathematicians, whose names I'd have to dredge out of my 20-year old essays.