On 22 Sep 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
