Humans have thought that they always want to be the same as God. First, stealing the ban and being taken from the Eden by God, and then wanted to make the tower close to God and was taking the language. However, human beings have not given up the pursuit of God: The history of science and technology throughout the West is to manufacture machines to replace people (seemed to repeat the process of recurring God). Turing's ideal is to understand and use natural language, can think or reason for people like people, so-called "Turing Test" has become artificial intelligence. Penrose is undoubtedly a reminder of the "strong manual smart" in the "Emperor New Brain".
Human usual tricks is to claim that a certain "science", "science" and even become an indispensable of businessman. Let us tear off "science", look at her true face. Copernicine "Daily Heart Say" is not a "stereotype" "science", which is only the difference between the selection of the reference system, resulting in different description complexity. If you are not afraid of trouble, choose which place (or even the moon), because their description ability is the same. There are many historical facts, in principle, in addition to accepting "science" defined by Popoor, humans always choose "science" from a practical point of view, describing the less complexity is first seen. The problem is far away from that simple:
What is the ability to describe many formal systems?
What are the formal systems of the same ability?
Where is the system's complexity is small to an accepted extent?
Which theory is selected in the trade-off of the profile and describing the total cost of complexity?
Therefore, a theory is accepted by many arguments. How much is human beings spend so much? In the book of "Mathematics: Deterministic Loss", Klein strongly criticized the "scientific" error point of "science" to truly strictly determined mathematics. Mathematics is not a description of the law, logic is not a portrayal of human thinking, just because of good use (that is, more "science" is more than a point), it is considered a sacred thing.
At the beginning of this century, the Mathematical Perfect Building's Balancehead - Hilbert's dream was completely crushed by the genius godel (Godel incompletely theorem), who also wants to build, history seems to repeat Tongtian Tower story. What about linguistics? Chomsky said that there is a "panogramal" in the human brain, and afterwards say "no", what is the meaning? We are not God. The only thing that humans can do is to assume that God may like to use "Okham razors." For local formal natural language, Montague proposes the "Montague syntax", and the syntax of the domain law and the conversion of the syntax, and the syntax is also far away. Montague is very clear, his theory is only the first step in the Long March, the formalization of language is the challenge of human beings, so Montague raises out mathematics to help, do not know the ability of mathematics, nothing, this heavy (I still have a trouble).
There is no ultimate theory of linguistics. Which theoretical "easy to use" is selected, which is not the math or statistical (experience). After all, people are people, don't try to get close to God. "I awe, God! I tried to live and think about your willingness," we are looking for and experience the will of God, but I don't dare to expect myself. Humble, human beings! After all, people are people. Only by humility, there will be no "no eternal truth", this is not aware of the highland thickness (people do not match "eternal", "eternal" is God's vocabulary; people can talk about "eternal" can only create paradoxes - " There is no eternal truth "is an eternal truth?). There are also words "unlimited", "forever", it is best not to say. Croar Nike said "God created natural numbers, all the work", Cantor attempted to peek "unlimited", he was crazy, died in the madhouse. The larger mathematician Poincare resolutely denies the existence of "actual infinity". Kant's opening of "Pure Rational Criticism" is proposed to solve a problem, first of all, it is necessary to discuss whether this problem can be solved, the mathematical branch "proves" should be the point of view of Kant. Now, computational linguistics face this problem: Can the language are formified?
If it is not possible, can the local formulating range determine?
If you can't, the understanding of the language can only rely on experience.
Turing believes the language is the breakthrough of artificial intelligence, and it is also the largest stumbling block. Yes, the language is given by God, and the mystery is what people can understand. Therefore, don't try to reveal the true rules of any language, we can only guess God's intention, as for a certainty of his theory is the ultimate theory of language, the right is an idiotic dream. Chomsky doesn't have to do such a hypothesis. Is there a "flue syntax" only God know, the natural language of mankind is given by God. The links between language and thinking are so close, and the theory of language is ivive is inevitably linked to the topic of thinking. From a certain point of view, the study language is to study human thinking. If you don't define the theoretical range, it is likely to have a "referral" phenomenon ("GEB" book has a good discussion on the natural language, mainly exploring the incompleteness of Gotel. Yes, The second half of Gotel is spent in loneliness. Many of his amazing discovery are all inherently dust. Einstein often deliberately delayed get off work in the Princeton Higher Institute, it is to go home with Gotel, with him. Discussing philosophy. Gothe is the first winner of the Einstein Award. Gotel got anorexia in his later years, living alive starvation).
There is no safe passage for people, experience to logical propositions. For God, maybe "pig is not flying" is a true proposition (God did not give it flying attributes when the pig was in the original.
People need "possible world" to ensure that "pigs are not flying" is true under an explanation. In fairy tale, pigs may fly, but this does not affect our understanding of "pigs don't fly" in real experience (with logical propositions, it is a lazy approach). Reliable saying is "As far as my personal experience, I think the pig is at least now." Ambiguous ...
"Flying" This property is a pig that is not all all, can't be seen from the word "pig". For example, swallows, no one says "flying swallows". If God suddenly thinks, all pigs will be flying from now, and human beings will still call them a pig, but only the pig's properties should be added to a "flying".
This discretion of experienced logical propositions is similar to the proposition "PI has a continuous seven 7". This proposition is exceeding the ability to people (for God, what is the result, I do not know). Sometimes I think of blame, is it to be a standard for measuring the limits of people's understanding?
"Say people to do personnel" What is important to human beings ...
"Don't try to get close to God." We can only say that we know, for those "words" that will never say, "silence.
