Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Heavily cited too (Score 1) 254

Even philosophers have been citing this work (eg Jesse Prinz), this is fracking huge. Somehow big journals need to start publishing replications of published work electronically and linking the original (in electronic form) to the attempted replications - and end the "We're too important to publish replications" nonsense. Peer review can only spot bad methods, and citations only really track relevance to what the citee is doing, There needs to be a quick an easy way to track replication - rather than trawling through minor journals that might have published a replication attempt. The topics of these papers were really important and the guy has single handedly fucked over sociology just when it really needs funding and support.

Comment Barking up the wrong tree. (Score 1) 729

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...

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.