On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 4:14:20 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 6 Dec 2018, at 12:33, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 5:05:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 5 Dec 2018, at 19:20, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:29:44 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:48, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On the truth of computationalism, I mean to express emphatically that >>>> *computationalism >>>> is indeed false*, and it should be replaced by what I call *real >>>> computationalism* (where I am adopting the "real" label from Galen >>>> Strawson): >>>> >>>> >>>> I take a look, but don’t see clearly what you mean by “real >>>> computationalism”. If it assumes some primary matter, it cannot be >>>> computationalist indeed. But I prefer to stay agnostic, and to keep my >>>> opinion private, if I have one. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >>>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/ ] >>>> >>>> -pt >>>> >>>> >>>> The background idea of real computationalism is: >>> >>> >>> (From the perspective of mathematical fictionalism [MathFict >>> <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/>] — where >>> *there >>> are no such things as mathematical objects* — if computation is >>> considered to be a branch of pure mathematics, then computationalism is >>> fiction.) >>> >>> >>> >>> You should better call it “real physicalism”. With computationalism, >>> physics is fiction, simply. (In the sense of fiction used by >>> math-fictionanlist. >>> >>> But math-fictionalise does not make much sense to me with resect to >>> arithmetic. >>> >>> I believe more in the proposition “either it exist numbers x, y, z such >>> x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 33, or not” is less fictional than “the moon exists”. I >>> can conceive waking up in a world without a moon, but I can’t conceive >>> waking up in a world where x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 33, would have and not have >>> solutions. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Basically it is a materialist thesis: The only computers that exist are >> ones that naturally arise in nature, or can be built by beings of nature >> (like us). >> >> "Pure mathematical" computers are fictions. They do not exist. >> >> >> That makes few sense. I believe more in numbers (and universal number) >> than in the moon. >> Of course that makes sense for a materialist, but then he/she cannot use >> the computationalist theory of mind. >> I cannot conceive of anything more concrete than numbers. Physical >> objects are much more abstract, and *seems* concrete because we are not >> aware of the pre-theorisation made by the brain long history. >> >> >> >> >> Example: The Turing >> machine as defined in the standard textbook manner [ >> https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/tutorials/turing-machine/one.html >> >> ]. >> >> >> Nice to hear that you understand that the Turing machine notion is >> immaterial/mathematical, and does not rely on any assumption in physics. >> But the paper should not call them hypothetical. Immaterial is enough, and >> their existence are provable from elementary arithmetic. When a kid get a >> 0/10, it will not help him/her to say that 0 is hypothetical ... >> >> >> >> >> (Some quibble that there is no such thing as a "natural computer" since a >> computer by definition has to be a human-built thing. I call that idea >> "boring”.) >> >> >> >> I agree. Bacteria *are* physical implementation of computer (universal >> machine) in Turing sense. >> >> >> >> So one could call it "material computationalism" I guess. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, that is contradictory, unless you use “computation” in >> some non standard sense, out of the Church-Turing thesis. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > I use it "unconventional"-ly, as in > > http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/ - International Center of Unconventional > Computing > http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/ - Unconventional Computation and Natural > Computation 2019 TOKYO, June 3-7, 2019 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_computing > etc. > > > Does it assumes that Church’s thesis is false? > > > > > One just uses the term *unconventional computation* or *unconventional > computing* - a widely used term - and people will understand the > non-standard non-assumptions. > > > Widely used does not mean that the notion is clear. I have been asked to > participate to a book in unconventional computing (which has been published > since, but I don’t find the reference now). > Natural computing seems to me based on a misunderstanding of Turing’s > notion of computation. > > Bruno > > > Of course UC says CTT is false.
(Pragmatists don't get "hung up" with truth, as you know.) It's the UCNC conferences, which is a bit odd, but they put UC and NC together. I don't really like NC. Just UC, since I think that's clearer. The International Conference on Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation (UCNC) is a meeting where scientists from many different backgrounds are united in their interest in novel forms of computation, human-designed computation inspired by nature, and computational aspects of natural processes. UCNC provides a forum for such scientists to meet and discuss their work. The 18th UCNC will be hosted by the University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo. - pt -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
