Subject:    	 Re: Q. on Penrose arg: why new *physics*?
From:         	[email protected] (JRStern)
Date:         	1997/08/05
Message:	5s8bm0$

On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 18:27:54 -0400, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
 wrote:
>JRStern wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 17:56:07 -0400, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
>>  wrote:
>> > ... This also
>> >implies that the engine in the first "free-thinking"
>> >artifact is probably going to be a diesel.
>> ...
>> As enjoyable as that all is, the connection to Penrose's theories does
>> not seem to be present in the text, how they say.
>
>Explicitly, no.  Implicitly, yes, in the line just before the one
>you have included above:
>
>"Since the explanation I have proposed amounts  to the contention
> that the most rational species is beginning to exhibit signs of
> transcending the formalism of nature's fixed objective, it can
> reasonably be construed as providing evidence and argumentation
> in support of Lucas/Godel (see newsgroup discussion)."

Lucas does not require Penrose's physical theories, though they are
"culturally compatible", as yours is with Lucas'.  A truckload of
compatible (and all controversial) theories do not constitute the
empirical evidence you claimed, that got us going.

Joshua Stern
[email protected]