Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: Mark Nicholls on 19 Aug 2005 08:42 Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 19 Aug 2005 03:22:13 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: > > > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> On 18 Aug 2005 04:32:05 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: > >> > >>>>>> And even if there were one, neither fuzziness nor randomness > >>>>>> can be expressed in a deterministic system without some > >>>>>> incomputable elements. > >>>>> > >>>>> But they are incomputable by *any* means, right? > >>>> > >>>> That's an interesting question. It depends on the hardware. We don't know > >>>> if the Universe can offer us anything beyond Turing machine. > >>> > >>> But the turing machine is a theoretical machine, it is not the universe > >>> that constrains it (in terms of physics) but the maths, and that is > >>> only constrained by the wit of man. > >> > >> But computer is a physical object. You can build it of atoms, you cannot do > >> it out of thoughts. > > > > A turing machine is not. > > Do you mean infinite band? ? I don't understand "infinite band"? > > >> Many people strongly believe that the physical world is > >> equivalent to a giant FSM, which is even weaker than a TM. > > > > TM? > > Turing Machine of course, sorry. > > >> 2. Not that I would insist on it, but it is thinkable that the minimal set > >> of axioms required to adequately describe what's going on [by means of our > >> logic] could be bigger than the number of the states of all our brains. > > > > Goedel would imply that the set of axioms required for the system to be > > complete is unbounded, if the states of our brains are finite, then we > > cannot 'know' everything. > > That is not required. The question is whether we could "know" physical > world and ourselves there. Provided that somebody would define what does it > mean to "know". (:-)) ! by know I mean have some concept of "truth" that is the union of provable truth and those unprovable statements that we believe to agree with....truth thus becomes relative to the observer! i.e. they are belief. Isn't existentialism all about this sort of thing, i.e. we cannot prove we exist, or that the universe exists, we just choose to believe it because it's convenient and consistent with our observations. > > >>> Would it be capable of belief in the absence of formal proof? Could it > >>> discern the truth? > >> > >> An extended Turing test, a capability to believe in irrational as a > >> criterion of intelligence? (:-)) > > > > irrational may be strong....though people often believe irrational > > things.....unprovable certainly. > > > > so it is reasonable to believe in god > > it is reasonable to not believe in god > > it is irrational to assert that you know the answer......it would be > > harsh on the proponent of aethiesm as a fact to assert that that made > > him unintelligent! > > Atheism is a religion, as irrational as any other! (:-)) > quite so....I completely agree......while agnosticism is a fact.....in fact in that sense they are not mutually exclusive, I can assert that I am agnostic in the sense I accept there is no proof of the statement "there is a god", but I *believe* it to be false, thus I am an aethiest. So I haven't got a problem with religious people or aethiests, as long as they have a large dose of agnosticism thrown in....if not I find both camps equally irrational.
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 19 Aug 2005 09:36 On 19 Aug 2005 05:42:26 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On 19 Aug 2005 03:22:13 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: >> >>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>> On 18 Aug 2005 04:32:05 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> And even if there were one, neither fuzziness nor randomness >>>>>>>> can be expressed in a deterministic system without some >>>>>>>> incomputable elements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But they are incomputable by *any* means, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's an interesting question. It depends on the hardware. We don't know >>>>>> if the Universe can offer us anything beyond Turing machine. >>>>> >>>>> But the turing machine is a theoretical machine, it is not the universe >>>>> that constrains it (in terms of physics) but the maths, and that is >>>>> only constrained by the wit of man. >>>> >>>> But computer is a physical object. You can build it of atoms, you cannot do >>>> it out of thoughts. >>> >>> A turing machine is not. >> >> Do you mean infinite band? > > ? I don't understand "infinite band"? "tape", sorry. It's difficult to switch between German and English, it makes my finite state machine even more finite... (:-)) >>>> 2. Not that I would insist on it, but it is thinkable that the minimal set >>>> of axioms required to adequately describe what's going on [by means of our >>>> logic] could be bigger than the number of the states of all our brains. >>> >>> Goedel would imply that the set of axioms required for the system to be >>> complete is unbounded, if the states of our brains are finite, then we >>> cannot 'know' everything. >> >> That is not required. The question is whether we could "know" physical >> world and ourselves there. Provided that somebody would define what does it >> mean to "know". (:-)) > > ! > by know I mean have some concept of "truth" that is the union of > provable truth and those unprovable statements that we believe to agree > with....truth thus becomes relative to the observer! i.e. they are > belief. > > Isn't existentialism all about this sort of thing, i.e. we cannot prove > we exist, or that the universe exists, we just choose to believe it > because it's convenient and consistent with our observations. In which we believe that they are convenient, consistent, observed, believed in and so on ad infinitum. The world of beliefs is as discontinuous as quantum mechanics. Which is the only way to stop bad recursion, I *believe* (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
From: Mark Nicholls on 19 Aug 2005 10:11 Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 19 Aug 2005 05:42:26 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: > > > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> On 19 Aug 2005 03:22:13 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: > >> > >>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>>> On 18 Aug 2005 04:32:05 -0700, Mark Nicholls wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>> And even if there were one, neither fuzziness nor randomness > >>>>>>>> can be expressed in a deterministic system without some > >>>>>>>> incomputable elements. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But they are incomputable by *any* means, right? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's an interesting question. It depends on the hardware. We don't know > >>>>>> if the Universe can offer us anything beyond Turing machine. > >>>>> > >>>>> But the turing machine is a theoretical machine, it is not the universe > >>>>> that constrains it (in terms of physics) but the maths, and that is > >>>>> only constrained by the wit of man. > >>>> > >>>> But computer is a physical object. You can build it of atoms, you cannot do > >>>> it out of thoughts. > >>> > >>> A turing machine is not. > >> > >> Do you mean infinite band? > > > > ? I don't understand "infinite band"? > > "tape", sorry. It's difficult to switch between German and English, it > makes my finite state machine even more finite... (:-)) Mine don't span German at all. OK, but yes, I don't remember seeing a Turing machine, even with a finite tape in the server room, but that doesn't really undermine the usefulness of them as theoretical machines....i.e. it is the theory that constrains us as well as the practicality. > > >>>> 2. Not that I would insist on it, but it is thinkable that the minimal set > >>>> of axioms required to adequately describe what's going on [by means of our > >>>> logic] could be bigger than the number of the states of all our brains. > >>> > >>> Goedel would imply that the set of axioms required for the system to be > >>> complete is unbounded, if the states of our brains are finite, then we > >>> cannot 'know' everything. > >> > >> That is not required. The question is whether we could "know" physical > >> world and ourselves there. Provided that somebody would define what does it > >> mean to "know". (:-)) > > > > ! > > by know I mean have some concept of "truth" that is the union of > > provable truth and those unprovable statements that we believe to agree > > with....truth thus becomes relative to the observer! i.e. they are > > belief. > > > > Isn't existentialism all about this sort of thing, i.e. we cannot prove > > we exist, or that the universe exists, we just choose to believe it > > because it's convenient and consistent with our observations. > > In which we believe that they are convenient, consistent, observed, > believed in and so on ad infinitum. > > The world of beliefs is as discontinuous as quantum mechanics. Which is the > only way to stop bad recursion, I *believe* (:-)) > I'm not sure I believe quantum mechanics, I certainly cannot comprehend it, and what people say about it, upsets my largely 19th century view of the universe.....well relativity isn't so bad, so circa 1920.
From: Chris Sonnack on 19 Aug 2005 14:43 Mark Nicholls writes: > That was really my point about the god discussion, science is limited > by maths, and that is limited, belief needs to be consistent with the > maths, but can live in the gaps. I have a slightly different (but similar) view. I see reality as having a Yin/Yang aspect (and dualism exists in so many areas). In this case, one half is "knowledge"--the things we "prove" with math and science-- and the other half is (take your pick) irrational/intuitive/faith based. Both sides, knowledge and belief, are quite powerful. People do amazing things (good and bad) because of belief, and there's even stories of those that overcome illness through........well, no one knows! Maybe it's as simple as believing--not IN something, just believing, that brings to the fore our own inate powers. Maybe it turns out people need to have belief in *something* as much as they have a need to *know* things ("need to" == "get big benefit from"). [shrug] Whatever, anyway, it may not be in the "gaps" so much as just on the other side of the same coin, was my point. > Goedel would imply that the set of axioms required for the system to be > complete is unbounded, if the states of our brains are finite, then we > cannot 'know' everything. Consider the inherent difficulty of knowing your own brain. Knowing your thinking requires meta-thinking. But that's part of your brain, too, so to know your brain, you need to meta-meta-think, but..... > so it is reasonable to believe in god > it is reasonable to not believe in god > it is irrational to assert that you know the answer...... Indeed! If belief/faith plays the role I think it may in human minds, then by definition, knowing is out of the question. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris(a)Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
From: Joe Wright on 19 Aug 2005 18:05
Chris Sonnack wrote: > Mark Nicholls writes: > > >>That was really my point about the god discussion, science is limited >>by maths, and that is limited, belief needs to be consistent with the >>maths, but can live in the gaps. > I hope I haven't snipped too much. > > Consider the inherent difficulty of knowing your own brain. Knowing > your thinking requires meta-thinking. But that's part of your brain, > too, so to know your brain, you need to meta-meta-think, but..... > > > >>so it is reasonable to believe in god >>it is reasonable to not believe in god >>it is irrational to assert that you know the answer...... > > > Indeed! > > If belief/faith plays the role I think it may in human minds, then by > definition, knowing is out of the question. > The existence of God is an article of faith. Faith is not rational. Nobody knows this stuff. Well, actually I 'know' it but nobody 'believes' me. For example I contend that man created God in man's own image. I do not usually try to promote this view at church but it makes a lot of sense if you want to do a little meta-thinking. I think. "I know (whatever)" requires rational proof of the allegation. "I believe (whatever)" has no such requirement. -- Joe Wright "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --- Albert Einstein --- |