Hello Miguel, (i returned to cafe)

...

as i've said in other letter, both computers and humans may be described using mathematics

Erm... What do you really mean by "may"?

"can"

I'm pretty sure you can't give such description right now - otherwise you should already have several Nobel prizes.

for description of computer? :) i mean that if humans are *physical* creatures then their behavior should obey physic laws which is described in mathematical language. so we should either recognize that mathematics can't be used to describe physical world (i.e. so-called Nature Laws are not exist) or that human, as any other physical object, obeys to these mathematical equations but according to your logic, anyone who says that Nature obeys to the laws, should publish all these laws immediately?

It seems reasonable that even if such description is theoretically possible, no human would ever read it - despite that it can be dropped to the Earth from UFO.

it's true for whole Science - we can't read so-called Nature Laws from original, we can just believe in their existence and make assumptions about them based on experiments. but all our experiments (facts) are just finite of points - how we can draw whole function by several points? assumptions, assumptions... and we already know beautiful examples of scientists being wrong in their assumptions. to be exact, the whole history of science is history of replacing old wrong assumptions with new ones. even most well-known "laws" of Newtonian physics become obsolete just 300 years later so... my opponents use double-thinking at 100% - they believe in Nature Laws and free will, they love Science but sure that it cannot describe human. i don't mean personalities - it's just set of beliefs that society gives to each of us. moreover, every man should believe that he is thinking, but he should never really think and draw his own conclusion different from orthodox ones. it's double-thinking again. but society learn us that double-thinking is "inferior" (noone knows that is "inferiority" but we should avoid it). here set of beliefs obviously makes self-contradict and because we are teached to not be self-contradict, this at last end requires some personal selection. are you prefer to be self-contradict or not think, or something else - fortunately, society doesn't programmed us ho to make this choice. it's up to every one of us :) -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com