I can also change my definitions by the way. So I can define X = 3. I could literally edit the post above, although for the sake of consistency, I would not want to do that. But I define X = 3 now as far as this conversation is concerned, as I could have edited the post above.
If I did that, your “computation” of X := 1 would just be wrong, as X would be defined to be 3. That would be a contradiction as 1 is not equal to 3.😅
So that would show that you cannot compute X, as X has a value of 3. If it has a constant value, you cannot assign it another value, as that leads to a logical contradiction. I hard coded X=3 into the definition, so to speak, and I could do that in the post above, as it is not based on temporal logic but definitional logic. And of course that can be changed in time while still maintaining the order that the post above is the post, and your comment a comment.
It would then make more sense to go the route above to say I use variable [0] and define that. That would also be possible and valid, but it poses the same question, as we merely changed the variable. It does not really matter if you call it [0] or X, except for the purposes of definition.
I am not claiming everything can be defined, not even close to it. In fact math itself can prove there are undefinable real numbers, for example. So a lot of things are undefined. That is just life. Like uncomputational variables, which I use many in my brain, like [omega] which I can uncomputationally define to be anything I want. I could even define it to be an emoji🥨.
But then we are going beyond computation and definition into the realm of images and perception. Interesting.
I can also change my definitions by the way. So I can define X = 3. I could literally edit the post above, although for the sake of consistency, I would not want to do that. But I define X = 3 now as far as this conversation is concerned, as I could have edited the post above.
If I did that, your “computation” of X := 1 would just be wrong, as X would be defined to be 3. That would be a contradiction as 1 is not equal to 3.😅
So that would show that you cannot compute X, as X has a value of 3. If it has a constant value, you cannot assign it another value, as that leads to a logical contradiction. I hard coded X=3 into the definition, so to speak, and I could do that in the post above, as it is not based on temporal logic but definitional logic. And of course that can be changed in time while still maintaining the order that the post above is the post, and your comment a comment.
It would then make more sense to go the route above to say I use variable [0] and define that. That would also be possible and valid, but it poses the same question, as we merely changed the variable. It does not really matter if you call it [0] or X, except for the purposes of definition.
I am not claiming everything can be defined, not even close to it. In fact math itself can prove there are undefinable real numbers, for example. So a lot of things are undefined. That is just life. Like uncomputational variables, which I use many in my brain, like [omega] which I can uncomputationally define to be anything I want. I could even define it to be an emoji🥨.
But then we are going beyond computation and definition into the realm of images and perception. Interesting.