On 22 Sep 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote

>>>   what is the meaning of "computation is physical"?

>>  Which word didn't you understand?

> The word "is", in the sentence "computation is physical".

That sounds as if it were written by a lawyer. Scientists don't need to consult a lawyer before they answer a question, philosophers and politicians do. In sworn testimony during the Lewinsky sex scandal Bill Clinton answered a question this way:

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none', that was a completely true statement,"

Just explain how do *you* understand by "computation is physical"?




>> True, I have only read the first 2 steps (or maybe it was 3, I forget) of your Ulster Defense Association proof, but proofs are built on the foundation of what comes before, so when one comes upon a ridiculous blunder in step 2 (or maybe 3) it would be equally ridiculous to keep reading.

> This avoid telling us what you don't understand.

Bruno, if you have something new to say about this "proof" of yours then say it,

You are the one saying that you have an algorithm to predict the self- localization after a self-duplication, although you have been quite unclear on it, oscillating between not new and non-sense.



but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3 steps didn't exist.

Is there anyone else who get your point?

You are the only one people who does not get that point. Even my worst opponents get it.



If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous.

Even this is ridiculous, as step 4, 5, 6, 7 can certainly help you to see what you miss (or deny) in step 3.

If there is no first person indeterminacy, it is up to you to provide an algorithm, or at least an argument that such algorithm could exist, but it is clear for children that even God cannot predict the first person outcome, so I think you are just stuck for some unknown reason, as you provided none.

Bruno




  John K Clark










> It looks to me that this consists in single out some universal system and declare that only running it makes things real.[...] What does mean "physical"?. I don't take that notion for granted.

I'll explain what "physical" means just as soon as you explain what "real" means, and what "means" means.

I don't use it.
I am the one asking what it could mean, especially in this context.




>> So your great discovery is that you don't know what the end of a computation will be until you come to the end of the computation.

> Some have said exactly this to Feynman for his sum over histories formulation of QM. It is the same problem, with similar conclusions, and both are testable and comparable.

Feynman's theory said the magnetic moment for the electron should not be exactly 1 as had been thought but 1.00115965246, what number does your theory say it should be?

A quite difficult open problem. No doubt about this. But the goal I pursue is not doing physics, but formulating and progressing on the mind-body issue.




> You have study only 2/8 of part UDA,

True, I have only read the first 2 steps (or maybe it was 3, I forget) of your Ulster Defense Association proof, but proofs are built on the foundation of what comes before, so when one comes upon a ridiculous blunder in step 2 (or maybe 3) it would be equally ridiculous to keep reading.

This avoid telling us what you don't understand.




And in none of your writings do you factor in the IHA principle.

> and 0/8 of AUDA, so you might try to be cautious in your judgment.

I don't see how friend of Lawrence of Arabia, Auda ibu Tayi, is relevant to our conversation.

UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument (called paradox in the original work) AUDA = Arithmetical Universal Dovetailer Argument, which I write in case they put a literary philosopher in the jury, who are known for rejecting form of reasoning without explaining why they think that there are invalid. It is the part called "Interview of the Universal machine in the SANE2004 paper.

I think I have already told you this more than one time.

Bruno

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


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

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

Reply via email to