Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:24:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <v3pou2$v133$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me> <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3og5t$328ec$9@i2pn2.org> <v3oh4q$pi6u$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3ohim$jthg$3@dont-email.me> <v3ohql$pi6u$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3oi5r$328ec$12@i2pn2.org> <v3p437$sgtr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 15:24:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbcb5a2e000d59c1dda264f94a647a93";
	logging-data="1016931"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mgmTtEUsTDWlnpIblmJAx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9iHjHDqPHorzOLL1lU9srk1k50M=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3p437$sgtr$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4219

On 6/5/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-05 02:22:51 +0000, Richard Damon said:
> 
>> On 6/4/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2024 9:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>>> On 5/06/24 04:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> But the question it asks is an OBJECTIVE question that doesn't 
>>>>>> depend on who it is asked of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When H is asked about the behavior of a Machine that is programmed
>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it says then the context that it is H
>>>>> that is being asked is an inherent aspect of the meaning of this
>>>>> question and cannot be correctly ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Every machine does something. It either halts, or it doesn't. If a 
>>>> machine halts, then it halts even if you ask someone different. If 
>>>> the machine halts when I ask Bob whether it halts and he says it 
>>>> halts, then it still halts when I ask Alice whether it halts and she 
>>>> says it doesn't halt. Alice is wrong. The linguistic context doesn't 
>>>> change the fact that it halts.
>>>
>>> Professor Hehner proves my same point with Carol's question.
>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>
>>> Richard found a loophole that I fixed and told professor Hehner about:
>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>
>>
>> Which is just a strawman, because willful beings are different than 
>> deterministic machines.
>>
>> So, questions about future behavior of willful beings are actually 
>> considers off limits in many forms of philosophy, because they can 
>> create such contradictions.
> 
> There is also another problem with that sort of questions. Certain
> braches of philosophy reagard as well posed only those question that
> can be realiably answered with some method, at least later if not
> immediately. So the question "Will Carol correctly answer 'no' to
> this question?" is well posed: all that is needed is to observe Carol
> until Carol does so or dies. But the question "Can Carol correctly
> answer 'no' to this question?" is different: if Carol can but does
> not answer that question then how do we find out?
> 

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?

That is ridiculous.
In can be known in advance that it is an analytic impossibility
for Carol to correctly answer that question there cannot be any
correct reasoning that shows sentience makes any difference
at all.

Richard is merely trying to get away with a dogmatic ruse. Whenever
I press him for his supporting reasoning he tries to get away with
changing the subject using the strawman deception as his fake rebuttal.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer