Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: > What's important is the ability to form, use, and abandon languages (at > will, obviously). > > And any system where the language is fixed will be fragile to ambiguity > _because_ of Gödel's result. > > The only thing remaining is whether (and how much) contact and > interaction with the environment provides what's needed for forming, > using, and abandoning languages. If, as may be the case, all > assemblages of formal systems merely amount to a more complicated formal > system, then even an assemblage won't do what we're after. But if the > world is somehow "supra-computation", then perhaps sporadic interactions > with the environment can help a computer resolve unexpected exceptions > gracefully. > > - From that perspective the phrase "holarchy of formal systems" may well > be self-contradictory and only reality is capable of forming holarchies. > Well, I don't think requiring that a formal systems be grounded in semantics leads to a hopeless cascade of unintelligible stigmergic relations, uncomparable to others. At least from the point of view of building working control systems...
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
