On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

## Advertising

> On 7/1/2012 4:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 01 Jul 2012, at 09:41, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 7/1/2012 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 30 Jun 2012, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6/30/2012 12:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Jun 2012, at 18:44, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that you have mentioned that mechanism is incompatible with >>>>>>> materialism. How this follows then? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because concerning computation and emulation (exact simulation) all >>>>>> universal system are equivalent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Turing machine and Fortran programs are completely equivalent, you >>>>>> can emulate any Turing machine by a fortran program, and you can emulate >>>>>> any fortran program by a Turing machine. >>>>>> >>>>>> More, you can write a fortran program emulating a universal Turing >>>>>> machine, and you can find a Turing machine running a Fortran universal >>>>>> interpreter (or compiler). This means that not only those system compute >>>>>> the same functions from N to N, but also that they can compute those >>>>>> function in the same manner of the other machine. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But the question is whether they 'compute' anything outside the >>>>> context of a physical realization? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which is addressed in the remaining of the post to Evgenii. Exactly >>>> like you can emulate fortran with Turing, a little part of arithmetic >>>> emulate already all program fortran, Turing, etc. (see the post for more). >>>> >>> >>> Except neither fortran nor Turing machines exist apart from physical >>> realizations. >>> >> >> Of course they do. Turing machine and fortran program are mathematical, >> arithmetical actually, object. They exist in the same sense that the number >> 17 exists. >> > > Exactly, as ideas - patterns in brain processes. > > Brent, What is the ontological difference between 17 and the chair you are sitting in? Both admit objective analysis, so how is either any more real than the other? You might argue 17 is less real because we can't access it with our senses, but neither can we access the insides of stars with our senses. Yet no one disputes the reality of the insides of stars. You might argue the chair is more real because we can affect it, but then you would have to conclude the anything outside our light cone is not real, for we cannot affect anything outside our light cone. Also, how do you know the chair is anything more than a pattern in a brain process? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.