On 08 Jun 2015, at 18:40, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>> that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true
sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That
set can be defined in standard set theory
>> YOU CAN'T MAKE A COMPUTATION WITH A DEFINITION!
> I can do better.
You can't do better than a demonstration! Just make one calculation
without using matter that obeys the laws of physics and you've won
and this debate is over.
To make it physically is impossible, but I have already explain that
it is not relevant. The point is that those computations exist in
arithmetic, with the relevant redundancies and quantum quantization.
Your argument, if valid, would forbid any notion of block universe.
You would ask show me a working clock capable of giveing me the time
right now with a block universe. The solution is of course that time
and space, here and now, are treated by the self-referential
indexical. This has been explained, so you should quote the
explanation if you don't grasp them.
> I can prove their existence in arithmetic.
Nobody denies that true statements exist in arithmetic,
But the I was not saying that. I was saying that "computations exist"
is a true statement in the language of pure arithmetic, and that such
statement are independent of the physical laws.
but the trouble is false ones do too, and the only way known to sort
one from the other is to use matter that obeys the laws of physics
to make a calculation.
We don't have to sort them. We have to separate them, and as you agree
with the excluded middle problem, this is simple math.
> You forget to put yourself at the place of each continuators, and
analyse their first person discourses.
And "you" forgot that when creating thought experiments designed to
illuminate aspects of personal identity
I think that you have repeated this lie more than ten times. The
personal identity aspect needed is in the definition of the 1p and 3p
views given with the diaries. The thought experiements are used to
explain that physics becomes a branch of machine theology, not to add
anything that we don't know already on personal identity.
"you" can't talk about "yourself" and use personal pronouns in a
casual willy nilly manner as "you" do in everyday life!
That is why I have introduced the key notion of 1p, 3p, 31p, in UDA,
and that I tranbslate them with the intensional variants in the
translation in arithmetic. That has been done, verified, and it works.
Only you are using fuzzy pronouns here, in an argument easily refuted.
You deny this, but nobody grasp why.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
