From: "jeffrey E." <jeevacation®gmail.com> To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 01:57:28 +0000 brain as a computer? as silly as artificial intelligence., The simple example I teach re quantum is when i try to decide should i order fish or meat. for the moment before I order ( as you an I agree ins before i even am concious of ordering. ) both choices like schroedingers cat exist as a superpostioned wave function that collapses and a choice is made. . yes i am taking liberties.. the students you referred to you suggest are working on computers, not very odd that they might see you I language conforming to their pre perceptions On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Noam Chomsky < wrote: I have a VERY thick skin, and love to hear criticism. One of the best ways to learn. And I've often given up closely held beliefs on the basis of persuasive argumentation. But in this case, I just don't see the arguments. It's true that the mathematics lacks rigor, but that's for the same reason that publications in professional math journals lack rigor. The steps that are not spelled out are straightforward enough so that they can be easily filled in. I don't know of any problems about set theory, apart from the classic ones. Some version of set theory is presupposed in every branch of math, including category theory. As for the brain as a computer, I'm not sure what you see as the problem. The papers I sent you do assume that I-language is a computational system, with the properties mentioned, easily formalized. I don't know of any coherent alternative. Actually, very good professional mathematicians and physicists, one working primarily on quantum computers, have attended my regular seminars for years, but I've never heard a suggestion as to how mathematical ideas used in quantum theory would be relevant to systems of the kind we're considering. The "displacement conjecture" is, in fact, an immediate consequence of what would be the best possible theo