Penrose can't argue for his hypothesis

No scientist can either establish or refute the hypothesis that mathematical insight is non-algorithmic / noncomputable (see detailed text).

  • An empirically decidable property must be "a A2 property in the Borel hierarchy". Computability and noncomputability lack that property. Therefore, the hypothesis that mathematical intuition is non-computable is empirically undecidable.
  • Penrose's ability to recognise mathematical truths by insight is consistent both with the hypothesis that insight is algorithmic and the hypothesis that it isn't. So, Penrose's intuitions fail to establish his hypothesis one way or other.
Clark Glymour and Kevin Kelly (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
Penrose can't argue for his hypothesis
Glymour and Kelly are too strict
Gödel’s theorem is not decisive
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