On 7/1/2012 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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.
We access them indirectly via instruments and theories of those instruments.
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.
You can kick it and it kicks back. Of course there are many events outside one's
lightcones which one infers as part of a model of reality based on the events within one's
lightcones, e.g. I suppose that the Sun continues to exist even though the photons I from
which I infer it's existence are from it's past.
Also, how do you know the chair is anything more than a pattern in a brain
process?
How do you know you're not a brain in a vat? or a pattern in arithmetic?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
