On Jul 20, 5:42 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> I'm afraid this is not true. Some people even argue that computation
> >>> does not exist, the physical world only approximate them, according to
> >>> them.
> >>> I have not yet seen a physical definition of computation
> >> How about "a series of causally connected states which process
> >> information"
> > Can you give me a physical definition of the terms "series", "causal",
> > "connected, "states", "process", and "information"?
> > And I am very demanding: I would like an axiomatic definition.
> > In absence of such a definition, you are just describing an
> > implementation of a computation in what you assume, implicitly, to be
> > a natural universal system.
> >>> , except by
> >>> natural phenomenon emulating a mathematical computation. Computer and
> >>> computations have been discovered by mathematicians, and there many
> >>> equivalent definition of the concept, but only if we accept Church
> >>> thesis.
> >>> Now if you accept the idea that the propositions like "if x divides 4
> >>> then x divides 8", or "there is an infinity of twin primes" are true
> >>> or false independently of you, then arithmetical truth makes *all* the
> >>> propositions about all computations true or false independently of
> >>> you. The root of why it is so is Gï¿½del arithmetization of the syntax
> >>> of arithmetic (or Principia). To be a piece of a computation is
> >>> arithmetical, even if intensional (can depend on the *existence* of
> >>> coding, but the coding is entirely arithmetical itself.
> >>> In short, I can prove to you that there is computations in elementary
> >>> arithmetical truth, but you have to speculate on many things to claim
> >>> that there are physical computations. Locally, typing on this
> >>> computer, makes me OK with the idea that the physical reality emulates
> >>> computations, and that makes the white rabbit problems even more
> >>> complex, but then we have not the choice, given the assumption.
> >>>> So I assumed I didn't understand Bruno's argument correctly.
> >>> You seem to have a difficulty to see that elementary arithmetic "run"
> >>> the UD, not in time and space, but in the arithmetical truth.
> >> He should. Truth is not existence.
> > What is "existence"? If you refer to physics, then you are begging the
> > question, or you are just assuming that we are not machine.
> > Bruno
> But I think you beg the question by demanding an axiomatic definition
> and rejecting ostensive ones. Axiomatics are already in Platonia so of
> course that forces computation to be there.
How do you prove there is not concrete existence from your armchair?
Demand exact definitions.
Note that the definitions you have been given are abstract as well as
Conclude that whatever was being defined was abstract all along.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at