The absurdity of algorithmic insight

The claim that mathematical insight is algorithmic can be reduced to absurdity (see detailed text).

The claim that mathematical insight is algorithmic can be reduced to absurdity:
 
Assume:

There is a knowable algorithm (AI procedure) that  generates mathematical insight.
 
It follows that:

1) If we were aware of this algorithm, or how to generate it, then we would have to believe in the soundness of this procedure.
 
2) Gödel shows how to construct, for any algorithm for mathematical insight, a sentence whose truth follows from the soundness of the algorithm, yet which is inaccessible to that same algorithm.

3) We can understand and believe in the Gödel procedure.

Therefore:

There is not a knowable algorithm that generates mathematical insight.

Roger Penrose (1990).
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Are thinking computers mathematically possible? [7]
No: computers are limited by Gödel's theorems
Mathematical insight is non-algorithmic
The absurdity of algorithmic insight
Gödel’s theorem is not decisive
Penrose can't argue for his hypothesis
Roger Penrose
Alogrithms are fixed interpretations
Mathematical insight is not the important issue
Mathematical truth may evolve
Penrose's intuition is irrelevant
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip