**Gödel, Escher, Bach/**

__Chapter one/ The MU-puzzle.__**The Mu-puzzle**

This puzzle surely took away some of my time, but it was worth it nonetheless, I suppose. I found myself entering an sort of strange loop in its process, perhaps that’s what the reader is meant to figure out, or perhaps there is an actual solution (the book claims so) that I just haven’t reached yet. In any case, the strict following of the 4 rules contained within this formal system, restrict one to its conclusion, or at least constricts it by making things much harder to solve. Once again we are told about the difference between humans and machines, thus far, arguing how we would inevitably become bored at some point from traveling through this infinite site of probabilities (the mu-puzzle), but perhaps there is a simple way to its solution, that does not require this infinite quest. I read once, on the book entitles

*Physics of the Future*by professor Michiu Kaku, that the main problem with machines is that they are incapable of tow things. These two things are

1.) Pattern recognition

2.) Common sense

I won’t elaborate them fully here, but I can compare them to these kind of formal systems and such, by looking into a human capability of deciphering certain “obvious” traits within a problem and also its capacity to recognize certain patterns in our daily lives. Machines may be programmed for certain things and remain incapable of discerning the rest, they may practice great intelligence on a subject, such as chess, but in all other respects they are as dumb as wood. Nowadays machines have barely gotten close to the full intelligence of a cockroach. That is because human intellect also carries an emotional baggage.

**Part two Invention**

This dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise even includes mentioning of Euclid and his Elements. In fact, it is used as the Tortoise example upon Achilles never being able to outrace him. You see, Achilles by now thought he had already proven he would indeed win the race, outrunning the Tortoise even if it had a head start. However, the Tortoises argument, using Euclid book 1 proposition 1 as an example, was a little as follows: In order for one to assume the definite answer, which has been posed as a hypothesis, is correct, one must first validate the previous arguments that lead up to that seeming answer. Though this creates an infinitesimal hellish procedure, for each argument must have another validating its truth.

**Tortoise example using Euclid book 1, proposition 1:**

A.) Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

B.) The two sides of this triangle are things that are equal to the same.

C.) If A and B are true, then Z must be true.

D.) If A and B and C are true, then Z must be true.

E.) If A and B and C and D are true, then Z must be true.

F.) If A and B and C and D and E are true, then Z must be true.

**.**

.

.

.

.

Z.) The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other