Stupid question - but did they account for the curvature of the earth?
The GPS, and Radio signals would give a surface distance between the two points
but presumably the neutrinos went as the crow flies - through the crust, 732 km is well over the horizon.
Most important thing the cars need to do is tell when their sensors etc are in a state where the car is not in a fit state to drive.
It needs to give itself a drunk test before every trip.
If consciousness was some complex emergent phenomenon, wouldn't it take a complicated molecule to go into the brain and find out exactly what neurons to affect so as to leave the vital functions intact while retaining consciousness?
Godels theorm shows that no Finite algorithm could self-consistently prove all the truths of arithmetic
I meant to say: Godels theorm shows that no finite algorithm could self-consistently Find/List all the truths of arithmetic
I also think he's barking up the wrong tree.
I think that a mathematician could prove that he is (without us having to wait 20 years or more for full general AI. (IANA mathematician).
TL:DR - A mathematical proof that no Finite Quantum agorithm could self-consistently prove all of the truths of arithmetic.
His argument rests on Godel's theorm, and unfounded metaphysical speculation about how stupendously clever mathematicians are.
Godels theorm shows that no Finite algorithm could self-consistently prove all the truths of arithmetic (by a form of diagonal slash). His unfounded metaphysical speculation is that humans could self-consistently prove all of the truths of arithmetic, given infinite time. He "bases" that [speculation] on the fact that we can detect (toy) instances where a mathematical statement is a self referential Godel statement, which leads him to assume that that means we could detect all of them.
I would contend that there are mathematical statements in arithmetic that are so complex and subtle, that you couldn't even write them down using all the atoms of the universe, such a statement could not be could not be understood by a human being, and a human being could not
a) read it in a lifetime.
b) understand it even given infinite time.
c) and therefore wouldn't be able to see that it is a self referential Godel statement.
but I digress.
Penrose, as I said, thinks (unreasonably IMO) that mathematicians are transcendentally clever, and that the magic of quantum mechanics makes them so. To show this is a lost cause all that needs to happen is for a mathematician to rejig Godel's proof for quantum computers...
And don't get me started on his opinion that evolution couldn't explain mathematicians cleverness, sigh...
Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long