[Haskell-cafe] Re: Wikipedia on first-class object
bulat.ziganshin at gmail.com
Sat Dec 29 16:36:52 EST 2007
(i returned to cafe)
>> as i've said in other letter,
>> both computers and humans may be described using mathematics
> Erm... What do you really mean by "may"?
> I'm pretty sure you can't
> give such description right now - otherwise you should already have
> several Nobel prizes.
for description of computer? :) i mean that if humans are *physical*
creatures then their behavior should obey physic laws which is
described in mathematical language. so we should either recognize that
mathematics can't be used to describe physical world (i.e. so-called
Nature Laws are not exist) or that human, as any other physical
object, obeys to these mathematical equations
but according to your logic, anyone who says that Nature obeys to the
laws, should publish all these laws immediately?
> It seems reasonable that even if such
> description is theoretically possible, no human would ever read it -
> despite that it can be dropped to the Earth from UFO.
it's true for whole Science - we can't read so-called Nature Laws from
original, we can just believe in their existence and make assumptions
about them based on experiments. but all our experiments (facts) are
just finite of points - how we can draw whole function by several
points? assumptions, assumptions...
and we already know beautiful examples of scientists being wrong in
their assumptions. to be exact, the whole history of science is history
of replacing old wrong assumptions with new ones. even most well-known
"laws" of Newtonian physics become obsolete just 300 years later
so... my opponents use double-thinking at 100% - they believe in
Nature Laws and free will, they love Science but sure that it cannot
describe human. i don't mean personalities - it's just set of beliefs
that society gives to each of us. moreover, every man should believe
that he is thinking, but he should never really think and draw his own
conclusion different from orthodox ones. it's double-thinking again.
but society learn us that double-thinking is "inferior" (noone knows
that is "inferiority" but we should avoid it). here set of beliefs
obviously makes self-contradict and because we are teached to not be
self-contradict, this at last end requires some personal selection.
are you prefer to be self-contradict or not think, or something else -
fortunately, society doesn't programmed us ho to make this choice.
it's up to every one of us :)
Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at gmail.com
More information about the Haskell-Cafe