subject:"Re\: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka \"God\""

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 10 Feb 2017, at 21:31, MJH wrote:



On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi people,

I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with  
questions already answered.


Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.

If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but  
in this present case we are looping.


Does anyone else have a problem with step 3 (the frist person  
indeterminacy in self-duplication experience)?


Or does anyone else believe John is trying to say something, and in  
that case could he or she explains it?


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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Brilliant stuff, Bruno.

I do not know how you have been able to keep your composure so well.  
Many thanks for providing such a consistent explanation.


You are welcome. Thanks,

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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-10 Thread MJH


On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi people,
>
> I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with questions 
> already answered. 
>
> Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
>
> If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but in this 
> present case we are looping.
>
> Does anyone else have a problem with step 3 (the frist person 
> indeterminacy in self-duplication experience)?
>
> Or does anyone else believe John is trying to say something, and in that 
> case could he or she explains it?
>
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>  

Brilliant stuff, Bruno.

I do not know how you have been able to keep your composure so well. Many 
thanks for providing such a consistent explanation.

 

-- 
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-09 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> Hi people,
>  
> I think that this post is pure trolling.
>

Of course, anyone who disagrees with the great Bruno Marchal can't be
sincere and can only be a troll.

> > 
> John comes back with questions already answered.
>

Answered with
statements like "I" will be the Moscow man and the 
Moscow man
 will see Moscow and "I" will be the Washington man and
the Washington man will see Washington, but "I" will see only one city; and
that blatant contradiction can be perfectly cleared up by using
Kleene's second recursion theorem
 to figure out what the referent of the personal pronoun "I" is. Obviously
only a troll would say this work of unparalleled genius is bafflegab.

John K Clark

>
>

-- 
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi people,

I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with  
questions already answered.

Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.

If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but in  
this present case we are looping.

Does anyone else have a problem with step 3 (the frist person  
indeterminacy in self-duplication experience)?

 Or does anyone else believe John is trying to say something, and in  
that case could he or she explains it?

Bruno

On 09 Feb 2017, at 01:53, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>>> from the third person points of view that he can have about  
himself, or better himselves.

>> No idea what that means, none whatsoever.

> It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me  
at W *and* at M. he talk about his first person experience from the  
third person pov.

My friend can talk about his first person experience from  
the third person pov ? What does that have to do with me or my  
duplicate?  I still have no idea what you're trying to say,  
none whatsoever.

> That definition is already in the papers, and in all posts on  
this subject. read the post and memorize the definition.

You make it quite clear that the content of the diary is the  
definition, but you don't know what it's the definition of. And I  
will tell you that the ultimate answer is 42 and you should memorize  
that, but I don't know what the ultimate question is.

> Both have that memory, and we agreed that both are the H-guy.

The one thing we agree on.

>>  So why do you keep talking about that stupid diary?

> Because its content is used to track the first person  
views. It works, without any ambiguity.

It only tells about past views, views about a individual that has  
changed, and changed in a way that is NOT unique. So how on  
earth could that not lead to ambiguity?

> This is handled very simply, both intuitively.

Intuition is useless in a world with people duplicating  
machines. 

> W-JC is H-JC and M-JC is H-JC.

Yes.

> We did agree that W-JC is NOT M-JC.

Yes.

> That's why there is an 1p-indeterminacy.

Huh? What exactly is indeterminate about that?

> You just cannot be, with that protocol, feeling seeing the  
two cities at once.

You you you. Bruno Marchal would be lost without good old  
Mr.You!

> the pronouns are handled by Kleene's second recursion theorem.

I can recognize bafflegab when I see it, and that my friend is  
bafflegab. 

>>> If there were a 1p-duplication, the diary would  
contain "Now I have the feeling to see simultaneously the city of W  
and the city of M".

>> I'm looking at the diary right now and it says "I was  
the guy at H yesterday and now it is February 7 2017 at  
1900  GMT and I see W" and "I was the guy at H  
yesterday and now It is February 7 2017 at 1900 GMT and I see  
M".
> That is nonsense.It is: " I'm looking at the diary right now  
and [...]

It's diaries not diary. Plural. If the machine can duplicate a  
person it can certainly duplicate a book; and both those quotations  
are in the diaries of the guy who remembers being in H.

John K Clark

--
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.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-08 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>>
>>>  from the third person points of view that he can have about himself, or
>>> better himselves.
>>
>>

> >> 
>> No idea what that means, none whatsoever.
>
>
> > 
> It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me at W *and* at
> M. he talk about his first person experience from the third person pov.
>

M
y friend can talk about his

first person experience from the third person pov

?
What does that have to do with me or my duplicate?  
I still have no idea what
 you're trying to say
, none whatsoever.


> > 
> That definition is already in the papers, and in all posts on this
> subject. read the post and memorize the definition.
>

You make it quite clear that the content of the diary is the definition,
but you don't know what it's the definition of. And I will tell you that
the ultimate answer is 42 and you should memorize that, but I don't know
what the ultimate question is.


> > 
> Both have that memory, and we agreed that both are the H-guy.
>

The one thing we agree on.


> >> 
>>  So why do you keep talking about that stupid diary?
>
>
> > 
> Because its content is used to track the first person views.
>  
> It works, without any ambiguity.
>

It only tells about past views, views about a individual that has changed,
and changed in a way

that is NOT unique. So how on earth could that not lead to ambiguity?

> 
> This is handled very simply, both intuitively.
>

Intuition is useless in a world with people duplicating machines. 



> > 
> W-JC is H-JC and
> 
> M-JC
> 
> is H-JC.


Yes.


> > 
> We did agree that W-JC is NOT M-JC.


Yes.


> > 
> That's why there is an 1p-indeterminacy.


Huh? What exactly is indeterminate about that?


> > 
> You just cannot be, with that protocol, feeling seeing the two cities at
> once.
>

You you you. Bruno Marchal would be lost without good old Mr.You!


> 
> the pronouns are handled by Kleene's second recursion theorem.


I can recognize
bafflegab
 when I see it, and that my friend is bafflegab. 

>
>>> >>
>>> If there were a 1p-duplication, the diary would contain "Now I have the
>>> feeling to see simultaneously the city of W and the city of M".
>>
>>
> >> 
>> I'm looking at the diary right now and it says "I was the guy at H
>> yesterday and now it is February 7 2017 at 1900
>> 
>>
>> GMT and I see W" and 
>> "I was the guy at H yesterday and now
>> It is February 7 2017 at 1900
>>
>> GMT and I see M".
>>
> > 
> That is nonsense.It is: " I'm looking at the diary right now and
>  [...]
>
>
It's diaries not diary. Plural. If the machine can duplicate a person it
can certainly duplicate a book; and both those quotations are in the
diaries of
 the guy who remembers being in H.

John K Clark

  


> 
>

-- 
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-08 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 08 Feb 2017, at 03:11, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
>> Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique  
successor because it's just not true anymore.

> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have  
about himself, or better himselves.

No idea what that means, none whatsoever.

It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me at W  
*and* at M. he talk about his first person experience from the third  
person pov. Like Jules Caesar and Obelix.

That is the 3-1 view. It is not the 1-views, which concerns the  
diaries in both cities: which *both* contains the statement "I see  
only one city".

>> Stop using personal pronouns, all of them, because  
they only create ambiguity and confusion. English and all languages  
will need major revisions after such machines are invented,  
particularly in regard to personal pronouns.

> The problem is a problem of possible first person outcomes

Yes, first person outcomes. That's plural.

Yes.

> We could ask a guy to do the experience, without giving him  
the protocols.

You need more than a fancy word like "protocols" to make  
a experiment or even a thought experiment scientific, you've got  
to be able to explain what the referent is for all the pronouns  
used. And you haven't because you can't. 

I did. You need to read the posts.

By definition of the first person experiences (cointent of the  
personal diary),

What does coincident with the diary mean exactly?

It was a typo. I meant "content". That definition is already in the  
papers, and in all posts on this subject. read the post and memorize  
the definition. That can help.

I assume it mean coincident with first writing it, but that  
happened in the past and the though experiment involves people in  
the future.

> In fact, we did abandon the use of I and he, to make precise  
if we are talking of the 1-I and 3-I, distinguishes by their diary  
contents.

After all these years I still haven't the foggiest idea what the  
hell 1-1 and 3-1 mean. All I know it that BOTH M and W have 1-p  
experiences and neither M nor W has the experience of writing in  
that diary because that happen yesterday not today,

Both have that memory, and we agreed that both are the H-guy.

and it happened in a city that neither M nor W are in. So why do you  
keep talking about that stupid diary?

Because its content is used to track the first person views. It works,  
without any ambiguity.

> Amoebas duplicate all the time

Yes, and if amoebas had language the way they would use personal  
pronouns would be very different from the way we use them; but  
amoebas don't have language so they don't have to worry about it.  
But we do. 

This is handled very simply, both intuitively. But if you prefer, you  
can do the math, where the pronouns are handled by Kleene's second  
recursion theorem.

> If you think the W-JC and the M-JC is the same guy,

NO, NO, NO!  W-JC is H-JC and M-JC is H-JC but W-JC is  
NOT M-JC.

That is what I meant of course. W-JC is H-JC and M-JC is H-JC.  
We did agree that W-JC is NOT M-JC. That's why there is an 1p- 
indeterminacy.

A tomato is red and a fire engine is red but a tomato is not a fire  
engine.

>>>So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty  
that he will [...]

>> That is exactly the problem, who is this "the guy that  
will" fellow? I don't know but he's certainly not the guy  
right now in Helsinki

> Of course he is the guy in Helsinki. Not right now, because  
time has passed of course,

Of course time has passed, so he's certainly not the guy  
right now in Helsinki. So how does that diary you keep talking  
about enlighten things?

by confirming the 1-indeterminacy, in both diaries.

> we have agreed that the guy survives (one en entire) in both  
places.

Yes, and both have 1p experiences.

> Both can say: I was in Helsinki, and now I am in this precise  
city.

Yes, and both have a equally valid claim of being that guy.

> Surviving applies to person. It makes no sense to ask a  
doctor to survive in exactly the same state and time lived before  
the operation.

What does survive in the same time before the operation even mean?

Nothing. You were alluding to this.

And if you stay in the same state after the operation then you can't  
form new memories and there is a word for that, "dead".

>>> (whoever he can become in that experience) will see  
only one city.

>>  "He"  has a name, USE IT.

> Than changes nothing.

It would put a end to this debate,  that would be  
something.

> See my older posts,

All your older posts have wall to wall personal pronouns and  
ridiculous stuff like 3-1 view. 

I have once given you a complete version of the argument without  
pronouns.

Is that the

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-07 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >
>> >
>>  Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor because
>> it's just not true anymore.
>
>
> > 
> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have about
> himself, or better himselves.
>

No idea what that means, none whatsoever.

>
>> > 
>> Stop using personal pronouns, all of them, because they only create
>> ambiguity and confusion. English and all languages will need major
>> revisions after such machines are invented, particularly in regard to
>> personal pronouns.
>
>
> > 
> The problem is a problem of possible first person outcomes
>

Yes, first person outcome*s*. 
That's plural.

> > 
> We could ask a guy to do the experience, without giving him the protocols.
>

You need more than a fancy word like "
protocols
" to make a experiment or even a thought
experiment
 scientific, you've got to be able to explain what the referent is for all
the pronouns used. And you haven't because you can't. 

> By definition of the first person experiences (cointent of the personal
> diary),
>

What does

coincident
 with the diary mean exactly? I assume it mean
coincident
 with first writing it, but that happened in the past and the though
experiment involves people in the future.

> 
> In fact, we did abandon the use of I and he, to make precise if we are
> talking of the 1-I and 3-I, distinguishes by their diary contents.
>

After all these years I still haven't the foggiest idea what the hell 1-1
and 3-1 mean. All I know it that BOTH M and W have 1-p experiences and
neither M nor W has the experience of writing in that diary because that
happen yesterday not today, and it happened in a city that neither M nor W
are in. So why do you keep talking about that stupid diary?

> 
> Amoebas duplicate all the time

Yes, and if amoebas had language the way they would use personal pronouns
would be very different from the way we use them; but amoebas don't have
language so they don't have to worry about it. But we do. 

> > 
> If you think the W-JC and the M-JC is the same guy,
>

NO, NO, NO! 
 W-JC
is H-JC and 
M-JC
 is H-JC but W-JC is *NOT* M-JC. A tomato is red and a fire engine is red
but a tomato is not a fire engine.

> >
>>> >>
>>> So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty that he
>>> 
>>> will [...]
>>
>>
> 
>> >> 
>> That is exactly the problem, who is this "the guy that will" 
>> f
>> ellow? I don't know but he's certainly not t
>> he guy right now in Helsinki
>
>
> > 
> Of course he is the guy in Helsinki. Not right now, because time has
> passed of course,
>

Of course
time has passed, 
so he's certainly not the guy right now in Helsinki
. So how does that diary you keep talking about enlighten things?

> >
>  we have agreed that the guy survives (one en entire) in both places.
>

Yes, and both have 1p experiences.

> > 
> Both can say: I was in Helsinki, and now I am in this precise city.
>

Yes, and both have a equally valid claim of being that guy.

> 
> Surviving applies to person. It makes no sense to ask a doctor to survive
> in exactly the same state and time lived before the operation.
>

What does survive in the same time before the operation even mean? And if
you stay in the same state after the operation then you can't form new
memories and there is a word for that, "dead".

> >
>>> >>
>>> (whoever he can become in that experience) will see only one city.
>>
>>
> 
>> >> 
>> "He" 
>> has a name, USE IT.
>>
> > 
> Than changes nothing.
>

It would put a end to this debate, 

that would be something.

> > 
> See my older posts,
>

All your older posts have wall to wall personal pronouns and ridiculous
stuff like 3-1 view. 

I have once given you a complete version of the argument without pronouns.
>

Is that the post  about THE 1p experience as if there were only one when
clearly there were two, or the one about the 1-3-1 experience?

>> >> 
>> No NO *NO*! It's NOT 3p duplication, it's a 1p duplication;
>
>
> > 
> No, that is logically impossible.
>

Then show me a logical contradiction that results from that; I already
know it would result in weirdness but that's not good enough.

>
> You can only mean 3-1p duplication.
>

I'll tell you exactly what I mean, BOTH W and M have equally valid 1-p
experiences and BOTH remember being H. Now it's your turn, who exactly is
the 1-p in a 3-1p experience?   

> > 
> If there were a 1p-duplication, the diary would contain "Now I have the
> feeling to see simultaneously the city of W and the city of M".
>

I'm looking at the diary right now and it says "I was the guy at H
yesterday and now it is February 7 2017 at 1900

GMT and I see W" and 
"I was the guy at H yesterday and now
It is February 7 2017 at 1900

GMT and I see M". And please don't tell me I'm confused because one was 1p
and the other 3p,  or

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 07 Feb 2017, at 04:09, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> I am right here in Helsinki right now,

> OK.

>> in the future what one and only one city will I see after  
the experiment is over?

> That is the question. OK.

Yes

> Notice that "I" refers to the 1p-experience.

That "I" refers to the 1p-experience of the person in Helsinki RIGHT  
NOW, and there is only one person who fits that description RIGHT  
NOW. In our world that "I" will have a unique successor  
tomorrow, but our world doesn't have matter duplicating machines. At  
least not yet.  

>> In the real world, and in any world that doesn't have people  
duplicating machines, that question makes perfect sense and the  
personal pronouns in it cause no problems. And you're right, a ten  
year old can understand the question, even a five year old could.  
That's because the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki  
right now" has one and only one successor in the future and thus  
there is a unique answer to the question. However if people  
duplicating machines are introduced, as is done in the thought  
experiment, then the person who wrote  "I am right here in  
Helsinki right now" does NOT have a unique successor,

> Indeed. But the person "in Helsinki right now" believes or  
assumes digital mechanism (computationalism). So he can do some  
reasoning.

If he can reason then he knows that the assumption that has  
served him well for every day of his life, the assumption that he  
will have only one successor tomorrow, fails him now because for the  
first time in his life right here in Helsinki right now "he" will  
encounter a people duplicating machine. At that point "he" needs to  
make 2 changes to make sense of the strange new situation:

1) Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor  
because it's just not true anymore.

Right, from the third person points of view that he can have about  
himself, or better himselves. OK. No problem.

2) Stop using personal pronouns, all of them, because they only  
create ambiguity and confusion. English and all languages will need  
major revisions after such machines are invented, particularly in  
regard to personal pronouns.

The problem is a problem of possible first person outcomes of the  
experience. We could ask a guy to do the experience, without giving  
him the protocols. By definition of the first person experiences  
(cointent of the personal diary), if we ask each guy having done an  
iteration of the experience, they will, in majority say that it looks  
like a random sequence.

In fact, we did abandon the use of I and he, to make precise if we are  
talking of the 1-I and 3-I, distinguishes by their diary contents.

>> and so the question does NOT have a unique answer,

> That is weird.

Yes, in a world with people duplicating machines things would  
be very weird indeed!

Amoebas duplicate all the time, and somehow, we continue that too. If  
you think the W-JC and the M-JC is the same guy, then we are already  
all the same universal person instantiated.

Then, we don't need people duplicating machines, as the quantum  
universal wave did already the self-multiplication, and the  
arithmetical reality too, and in each case, the 1-3 distinction is  
enough to clean the reasoning of any confusion.

Nobody understands the complexification that you add by obliterating  
the 1-3 distinction each time you want to replace an indeterminacy by  
an ambiguity.

Your deny of evidence seems transparent.

But they wouldn't be illogical or self contradictory, they'd just be  
weird; and anybody who has studied modern physics, or even modern  
mathematics, knows that there is no law that says things can't be  
weird.

Indeed. That's the point. The 1p indeterminacy might be weird, but is  
consistent, and follows from computationalism. You are the one saying  
that we should stop reasoning, and who do stop reasoning, actually, at  
step 3.

> So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty  
that he will [...]

That is exactly the problem, who is this "the guy that  
will"  fellow? I don't know but he's certainly not the guy  
right now in Helsinki

Of course he is the guy in Helsinki. Not right now, because time has  
passed of course, and a duplication, but we have agreed that the guy  
survives (one en entire) in both places. Both can say: I was in  
Helsinki, and now I am in this precise city.

Surviving applies to person. It makes no sense to ask a doctor to  
survive in exactly the same state and time lived before the operation.

> (whoever he can become in that experience) will see only one  
city.

 "He"  has a name, USE IT.

Than changes nothing. See my older posts, I have once given you a  
complete version of the argument without pronouns. But it is useless  
and looks more like

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 06 Feb 2017, at 20:28, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel  
seeing only one city.


How does computationalism alone guarantee that?  It seems that it  
relies on a lot of physical assumptions about the speed of light and  
the physical instantiation of computations.



Computationalism alone *is* the belief that you survive through a  
*physical* implementation of a computer in some state.


What is not assumed, is the 'primariness' of those physical notions.  
Indeed, later we get that this primariness cannot work.


And once you bet on computationalism, and the correct choice of your  
substitution level by the doctor, or by the teleportation engineer,  
computationalism explains well why each copy see only once city. I  
hope you see that, which at this step of the reasoning is the only  
thing asked.


Bruno






Brent

--
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.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-06 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel 
seeing only one city. 


How does computationalism alone guarantee that?  It seems that it relies 
on a lot of physical assumptions about the speed of light and the 
physical instantiation of computations.


Brent

--
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 04 Feb 2017, at 19:15, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> You were correct when when you said "he is  
duplicated", therefore while in H any question of the form "what  
will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the  
personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.

> Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions  
given, there is no ambiguity at all.

I am right here in Helsinki right now,

OK.

in the future what one and only one city will I see after the  
experiment is over?

That is the question. OK. Notice that "I" refers to the 1p-experience.

In the real world, and in any world that doesn't have people  
duplicating machines, that question makes perfect sense and the  
personal pronouns in it cause no problems. And you're right, a ten  
year old can understand the question, even a five year old could.  
That's because the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki  
right now" has one and only one successor in the future and thus  
there is a unique answer to the question. However if people  
duplicating machines are introduced, as is done in the thought  
experiment, then the person who wrote  "I am right here in  
Helsinki right now" does NOT have a unique successor,

Indeed. But the person "in Helsinki right now" believes or assumes  
digital mechanism (computationalism). So he can do some reasoning.

and so the question does NOT have a unique answer,

That is weird.

Assume that the guy will get a cup of coffee in both M and W.

We have agreed that this makes P(I will get coffee) = 1 in that  
experiment.

For that reason, we know also that

 P(the guy will see a unique city) = 1,

because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel  
seeing only one city.

So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty that he  
(whoever he can become in that experience) will see only one city.

in fact it doesn't have an answer at all because due to the wording  
the "question" is not a question at all, it is gibberish.

On the contrary, the question makes perfect sense for a  
computationalist. He knows in Helsinki that he will push a button, and  
that he will survive with Probability 1 (assuming computationalism and  
the default hypotheses).

What he cannot be sure is if it will be Moscow, or Washington, due to  
the 3p duplication. In fact he knows that if he predicts W (resp. M),  
one of the two copies will refute the prediction, and we were asked to  
give the best prediction which will be confirmed by both future  
continuations (by the definitions given). With this protocol, it can  
only give a distribution of probability, or a logical statement like  
"W xor M", as all the others will be refuted.

Notice that you might weakened the protocol. If in Helsinki there is a  
rumor that some Eve could eavesdrop the information sent from H to M  
and W, and could make a reconstitution in Vienna, the guy in Helsinki  
could predict something like "W or M or some other possible city like  
Vienna if the rumor is true".

There is absolutely no problem at all that I can see. All questions  
are precise, and have precise answers. The mechanist duplication makes  
impossible to reduce the ignorance in Helsinki, and makes impossible a  
definite answers leading to the first person indeterminacy. It shows  
this amazing fact, with mechanism, 3p determinacy leads to 1p  
indeterminacy. It is of course *the* basic key of reducing physics to  
a statistics on computations, like QM confirms a posteriori.

Bruno

It takes more than a question mark to make a question.

>> but for that to work after the thought experiment is all  
over you've got to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to  
be so we can see that the correct prediction was not made. So what  
would the correct prediction have been, M or H?

> None. It is "M or H".

So now we know the answer, it's "M or H" . Unfortunately we don't  
know exactly (or even approximately)  what the question was,

not in a world that has 1p duplicating machines . It's like the  
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the ultimate answer was known  
to be 42 but nobody knew what the ultimate question was.

> About the 3p, or 3-1p view.

After all these years I still  can't figure out the  
difference between the 3p view and the  3-1p view.  Can You?

John K Clark

--
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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-04 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> 
>> You were correct when 
>> w
>> hen you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
>> the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
>> the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.
>
>
> > 
> Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions given, there is
> no ambiguity at all.
>

I am right here in Helsinki right now, in the future what one and only one
city will I see after the experiment is over? In the real world, and in
any world that doesn't have people duplicating machines, that question
makes perfect sense and the personal pronouns in it cause no problems. And
you're right, a ten year old can understand the question, even a five year
old could. That's because the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki
right now" has one and only one successor in the future and thus there is a
unique answer to the question. However if people duplicating machines are
introduced, as is done in the thought experiment, then the person who wrote
 "I am right here in Helsinki right now" does *NOT* have a unique
successor, and so the question does *NOT* have a unique answer, in fact it
doesn't have an answer at all because due to the wording the "question" is
not a question at all, it is gibberish. It takes more than a question mark
to make a question.

>> 
>> but for that to work after the thought experiment is all over you've got
>> to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to be so we can see that
>> the correct prediction was not made. So what would the correct prediction
>> have been, M or H?
>
>
> > 
> None. It is "M or H".
>

So now we know the answer, it's "M or H" . Unfortunately we don't know
exactly (or even approximately) 

what the question was, not in a world that has 1p duplicating machines .
It's like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the ultimate answer
was known to be 42 but nobody knew what the ultimate question was.

> 
> About the 3p, or 3-1p view.
>

After all these years I still 

can't figure out the difference between the 3p view and the  
3-1p view
.  Can You?

John K Clark

>
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:01, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> You do have agree that the three people are the same H  
person. But he is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the  
HM in M.

You were correct when when you said "he is duplicated",  
therefore while in H any question of the form "what will he...?" is  
meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the personal pronoun is  
ambiguous after that.

Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions given, there  
is no ambiguity at all.

> The H in Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the  
prediction, we have to ask both HW and HM, and both say that the  
prediction "W v M" was correct, in both the 1p views,

So if they both agree and they are both correct then there must be  
only one answer to the question. So what one city do both W and M  
agree that H ended up seeing in the first person, Washington or  
Moscow?

W and M, from the 3p view that both can have on themselves.

But the question is about the 1p experience, and both agree with "W or  
M" being correct for the predictor in H, and verified in both cities.

> and that "W and M" is correct from the 3p views but incorrect  
from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to predict in Helsinki.

That's all very nice but it doesn't answer the question I  
asked, what one and only one city did H end up seeing?

The whole point is that in Helsinki the answer "H" CANNOT know the  
ending city. The best correct prediction (W v M) assesses that  
ignorance, which, as we assume computationalism, is necessary. We did  
detailed this already more than once.

Your entire proof is built around the idea that a correct prediction  
cannot be made in Helsinki,

?

A correct prediction has been made. It was "W v M" (exclusive "or").

but for that to work after the thought experiment is all over you've  
got to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to be so we  
can see that the correct prediction was not made. So what would the  
correct prediction have been, M or H?

None. It is "M or H".

If you can not clearly and unambiguously answer that very simple  
question then

Then we have the 1p indeterminacy.

the entire thing is nonsense because there is no way to tell if the  
correct prediction was made or not.

Then there is no indeterminacy even with a coin.

We have just to ask them both, and it is easy to see that "W v M" is  
verified by both, and none of "W" nor "M" is satisfied by both. Then,  
it is enough to look at all precise definition given to see that "W v  
M" is the best prediction possible at H. Like "Head or Tail" is the  
best prediction when throwing a coin.

>>So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up  
seeing, W or M?

> W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
> M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.

OK.

> Both agree that "W or M" was correct

No, they don't agree on that at all. One says W saw W and H saw  
W. The other says M saw M and H saw M. The one thing they both agree  
on is H saw W AND M.

About the 3p, or 3-1p view. That is correct, but does not answer the  
question asked. But "W v M" was still the best prediction, and it is  
verified by both, given that for M it is true that M -> (M v W), and  
for W it is true that W -> (M v W).

> None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of  
feeling themselves being in two cities at once.

That has no relevance on the question asked.  The question was  
what cities will H see, if both are H then H will see both cities.

Of course not.
H is duplicated, and know that in advance.
He knows in H that whatever happens, respecting the protocol, it is a  
certainty that the H-guy (him, here and now in H) *will* see only one  
city. That is true in all accessible situations available from H.

Where is this failed prediction you keep talking about?

?  (the fail prediction is "W and M": it is violated in both  
place, given that "W" and "M" represent the 1p views).

>>And yes both say they are in one place and one place only,  
but if both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W  
or M or both or neither?

> Both.

Fine. If both say they are H and one says H is in W and one says H  
is in M and you believe both then the answer to the question "what  
cities will H be in?" is rather obvious.

Yes, it is obvious both for the 3p view: (W and M), and for the 1p  
view (W xor M).

 > both confirm "W v M" (exclusive "or"), and both refutes "W &  
M"

Neither can confirm or or refute "W v M" by themselves. W can say  
that H sees W but W can say nothing about H seeing M,  Mr. W knows  
nothing about M, to find out about H seeing that you'll have to ask  
Mr.M. 

The guy in H has read the protocol, and knows that both will feel "W v  
M" to be true, and none will feel "W and M"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he is
> duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M.
>

You were correct when 
when you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.

> > 
> The H in Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the prediction, we have
> to ask both HW and HM, and both say that the prediction "W v M" was
> correct, in both the 1p views,
>

So if they both agree and they are both correct then there must be only
one answer to the question. So what one city do both W and M agree that H
ended up seeing in the first person, Washington or Moscow?

> > 
> and that "W and M" is correct from the 3p views but incorrect from the
> 1p-views, which was the one asked to predict in Helsinki.
>

That's all very nice but it doesn't answer the question I asked, what one
and only one city did H end up seeing? Your entire proof is built around
the idea that a correct prediction cannot be made in Helsinki, but for that
to work after the thought experiment is all over you've got to tell us what
the correct prediction turned out to be so we can see that the correct
prediction was not made. So what would the correct prediction have been, M
or H? If you can not clearly and unambiguously answer that very simple
question then the entire thing is nonsense because there is no way to tell
if the correct prediction was made or not.

>>
>> So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up seeing, W or M?
>
>
> 
>
> 
> W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
> > 
> M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.
>

OK.

> 
> Both agree that "W or M" was correct
>

No, they don't agree on that at all.
One says W saw W and H saw W. The other says M saw M and H saw M. The one
thing they both agree on is H saw W *AND* M.

> 
> None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of feeling
> themselves being in two cities at once.
>

That has no relevance on the question asked. 

The question was what cities will H see, if both are H then H will see
both cities. Where is this failed prediction you keep talking about?

>>
>> And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if both
>> also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M or both or
>> neither?
>
>
> > 
> Both.
>

Fine. If both say they are H and one says H is in W and one says H is in M
and you believe both then the answer to the question "what cities will H be
in?" is rather obvious.

>
> > 
> both confirm "W v M" (exclusive "or"), and both refutes "W & M"
>

Neither can confirm or or refute "W v M" by themselves. W can say that H
sees W but W can say nothing about H seeing M,  Mr. W knows nothing about
M, to find out about H seeing that you'll have to ask Mr.M. 

> > 
> that part of the argument is understood by nine year old children.
>

Nine year old children are not noted for their critical thinking skills,
that's why nine year old children "understand" things that just aren't true.

John K Clark  

-- 
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Jan 2017, at 17:44, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating  
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*  
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and thus there are  
now 2 of *YOU* and *YOU* sees 2 cities".  What one and only one  
meaning does the word "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is  
the one and only one referent?

> So you dare to insist on this?

Yes I dares. 

> In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only  
write W, or write M in the personal diary

And which one acknowledges that he and only he is H? W or M? 

You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he  
is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M. The H in  
Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the prediction, we have to  
ask both HW and HM, and both say that the prediction "W v M" was  
correct, in both the 1p views, and that "W and M" is correct from the  
3p views but incorrect from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to  
predict in Helsinki.

> Both agree that they did survive in only one place

Yes, and both agree they are H.

Exactly.

So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up seeing, W or  
M? 

W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.

M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.

Both agree that "W or M" was correct (and they are correct with the  
assumption and this protocol).

None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of feeling  
themselves being in two cities at once.

And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if  
both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M  
or both or neither?

Both.

And indeed, as I just show above, both confirm "W v M" (exclusive  
"or"), and both refutes "W & M" (keeping in mind that W and M  
represent the first person subjective experience of seeing something  
after some door is open).

> The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide  
to abstract from the 1-3 distinction,

The referent is unclear to John Clark, Bruno Marchal claims the  
referent is always clear to Bruno Marchal, if that were true Bruno  
Marchal could have ended this debate long ago simply by always  
using the referent in the thought experiment rather than the  
personal pronoun, but Bruno Marchal has refused to do that  
because then the flaws in the logic would be obvious. Those little  
personal pronouns may be small but they can cover up a multitude of  
sins, aka sloppy thinking.

I did it with and without pronouns, and that part of the argument is  
understood by nine year old children. You are the only one having a  
problem with this, and nobody understand your argument, as it consists  
in systematically introducing a difficulty where precisely the  
computationalist hypothesis makes everything utterly transparent.

Bruno

John K Clark

--
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.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> 
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating experiment **YOU**
>> can not predict what one and only one city **YOU** will see after **YOU**
>> after have been duplicated and thus there are now 2 of **YOU** and *
>> *YOU** sees 2 cities".  What one and only one meaning does the word
>> "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is the one and only one referent?
>
>
> > 
> So you dare to insist on this?
>

Yes I dares. 

> 
> In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only write W, or write
> M in the personal diary
>

And which one acknowledges that he and only he is H? W or M? 

> > 
> Both agree that they did survive in only one place
>

Yes, and both agree they are H. So you tell me, what one and only one city
did H end up seeing, W or M?

 And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if both
also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M or both or
neither?

> 
> The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide to abstract
> from the 1-3 distinction,
>

The referent is unclear to John Clark, Bruno Marchal claims the referent
is always clear to
Bruno Marchal
, i
f that were true Bruno Marchal could have ended this debate long ago
simply by always using the referent in the thought experiment rather than
the personal pronoun, but
Bruno Marchal 
has refused to do that because then the flaws in the logic would be
obvious. Those little personal pronouns may be small but they can cover up
a multitude of sins, aka sloppy thinking.

John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 28 Jan 2017, at 23:37, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal  
pronouns with no clear referent;

> Where?

Where it says things like "in the people duplicating  
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*  
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and  
thus there are now 2 of *YOU* and *YOU" sees 2 cities".

So you dare to insist on this? You are just repeating for the nth  
times (n big) your deliberate confusion between the 1p-you and the 3p- 
you.

What one and only one meaning does the word "YOU" have in the  
preceding sentence? Who is the one and only one referent?

In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only write W, or  
write M in the personal diary they can immediately access, and not both.
Both agree that they did survive in only one place, so they will do a  
better prediction next times, which is W v M, with an exclusive "or",  
and indeed the majority of the 2^n copies after the experiment is  
iterated n times agrees with this, where none can agree with "seeing,  
in the 1p sense, two cities.

The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide to  
abstract from the 1-3 distinction, which of course is a manner to  
eliminate the person contents of the person memories, which is akin to  
the usual and known person elimination of the materialist.

Bruno

John K Clark

--
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.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-28 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> 
>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with no
>> clear referent;
>
>
> > 
> Where?
>

Where it says
 things like
"in the people duplicating experiment **YOU** can not predict what one and
only one city **YOU** will see after **YOU** after
have

been duplicated and
thus 
there are now 2 of **YOU** and **YOU*" sees 2 cities".  What one and only
one meaning does the word "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is the
one and only one referent?

John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 26 Jan 2017, at 21:12, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of  
physics is able to perform calculations, I need only observe that  
is can.

> No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal.

True I can't observe that because I don't know what "pieces of  
matter are Universal" means and I doubt you do either, but I know  
what pieces of matter performing calculations means and I can  
observe that.

No, you can't. You can extrapolate from observation that some piece of  
matter are Turing Universal, but you cannot observe primitive  
('course, given the subject we discuss) matter, still less a complex  
relation disposition like being Universal.

> In all case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is  
enough for that task.

 What in the world is "grandmother physics"?

The physics from grandmother. Like "object falls, water makes wet". It  
is an expression for mundane or high level intuitive physics.

>>  you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the  
same thing without the help of physics.

> This is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when  
I explain this in all details in a self-contained way.

And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with  
no clear referent;

Where?

I told you that the self, the soul and the observer are well defined  
using Kleene's theorem. Computer science has solved all those  
indexical problems. You do just negative propaganda, without citing  
evidences. Your critics hare has already been refuted many times. Try  
to find something else.

and this is supposed to be a work that proves something about  
personal identity. 

Not at all. You criticize something which seems to exist in your  
imagination only.

> all you need to understand is the original definition of  
computable function,

I don't give a damn about your definitions or computable  
functions.

This ends the conversation.

Bruno

Enough talk lets see some action, I want you to do something, I want  
you to make a calculation without using matter that obeys the laws  
of physics.  Ask one of your infinite universal numbers to find out  
what the 11th prime number larger than 10^100^100 is and tell us  
what it says in your next post. Do that and you've won the argument,  
but no fair cheating by using one of INTEL's products or anything  
else made of matter.

> as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do  
not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal  
numbers do that,

Stop telling me that and SHOW ME!  You claim to know all about  
these "universal numbers" of yours so use them to make some  
calculations and put INTEL out of business.

> I have no clue if you are just joking

I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no  
need for a company like INTEL. 

Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a  
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists,

It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is  
invisible in most theologies, OK.

Don't you find that rather convenient? You'd think God should  
be the most obvious thing there is but instead the one thing  
theologians agree in is God is invisible.

> it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth  
of all arithmetical sentence,

And what percentage of  human beings on this planet believe the word  
"God" means "arithmetic? I would estimate about .01%. I  
agree that majority vote can't determine the nature of reality, but  
they can and do determine the meanings of words. And there are  only  
2 reasons somebody would use the English word "God" in such a  
grossly non-standard way:

1) They like to make a noise with their mouth that sounds like "I  
believe in God".

2)They wish to deceive.

> "amoral"? open problem.

> "Mindless?" Perhaps?

> but no need to take this as more than a simple metaphor.

Just as I thought, to you and only to you the English word "God"  
means an invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of  
arithmetic.  Bruno, do you really thing hanging the name tag "God"  
on such an amorphous blob helps communicating in your ideas to other  
people without creating massive confusion?

> That is implicit in Platonist like theology,

Plato was a imbecile and theology has no field of study. 

> Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One  
instead.

The one what?

> And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and  
physics came in great part from Plato and Aristotle.

All we hear from you is Plato and Aristotle, but you never  
mention the greatest Greek of them all, Archimedes.

> You say theology is stupid,

Theology is stupid and so are theologians. 

> but you mock all attempts to be serious with it,

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

19 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information