On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> Numbers can be derived from sensible physics >> >> >> That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without assuming >> Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in their description of physics. >> > > Turing universality can just be a property of physics, like density or > mass. > > > That is close to just nonsense (but I agree that some notorious physicists > are attracted to this, but they don't convince me). >
Can you explain why? > > > > Just as Comp does a brute appropriation of qualia under 1p uncertainty, > > > No. That would be a confusion between []p and []p & p (or others). > > Only God can do that confusion. > You seem to go back and forth between making qualia something transcendent and private, to making it somehow inevitable mathematically. If we ask ourselves, 'Does being a good mathematician require you to be a good artist or musician?', the answer I think is no. If we ask 'Does being a good artist or musician require us to be a good mathematician?' the answer is also no. Why is the relation between math, physics, and science so obvious, but the relation between any of those and the arts is not so obvious? > > > > physics can do a brute appropriation of arithmetic under material topology. > > > Some material disposition can be shown to be Turing universal. But this is > proved in showing how such system can implement a universal machine > (quantum or not quantum one). > Don't you just have to go to a level of description where the material appears granular. I don't really get the argument that all matter is computable but not all computation can be materialized. > > > > It would explain why Turing universality does not apply to gases > > > It applies to gases. technically no usable, as it is hard to put all the > gaz molecules > Not talking about gas molecules, I'm talking about a volume of ideal gas. > at the right position at the right time, but in principle, gases, in some > volume, are Turing universal system. > You would need to control that volume with non-gaseous containers and valves. Gas is still not Turing universal as an uncontained ideal gas. Computation requires formal, object-like units...because arithmetic is not really universal, it is only low level. > > and empty space. > > > Hmm... Quantum vacuum is Turing universal. I think. > I'm talking about an ideal vacuum though, not the vacuum that we imagine is full of particle-waves or probability juice. If I'm right about the sense primitive, energy exists only within matter, and not in space. > > For classical physics, you need at least three bodies. > > > > Computers require object-like properties to control and measure digitally. > > > Yes. > > > > > > > >> You often say, "we can do that", but this makes sense only if you do it >> actually. >> > > Some people might say that it is being done: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDCwrbqHfTM > The Future of Computing -- Reuniting Bits and Atoms > > > > I hope you are not serious. Interesting but non relevant. > This worries me when you give a blanket denial with no explanation. Why is it not serious? If we can make computer language out of stuff, then why would it not follow that computation is an emergent property of stuff? > > > > The Future of Computing — Reuniting Bits and Atoms > >> >> >> >> as easily as physics can be derived from sensible numbers. >> >> >> Physics is not yet extracted, only the or some quantum tautologies, and >> that was not that much easy, at least for me ... >> > > But the principle of the possibility is not difficult, at least, not for > anyone who has ever programmed a player-missile graphic/avatar/collision > detection in a game. > > > On the contrary. Hmm... I see you have not yet grasped the main UDA > points. > I don't see the connection to UDA. I'm talking about the common sense understanding in which programmed rules can be metaphorically rendered to resemble physics. > Even if the physicist find a dimple equation or program emulating the > physical universe, to extract both the quanta and the qualia, we have to > derive physics explicitly from ... sense. That is why sense if fundamental. > > That's what I'm saying. If you want to reduce everything to physics, you need quanta + public facing sense. If you want to reduce everything to information, you need quanta + private sense. If you want to reduce sense, you can't do it, but you can reduce quanta/information to sense as public facing sense - private sense. > But to derive physics from first person sense is not easy at all, and to > understand this you have first to understand how sense is derived from > arithmetic. > Sure it's not easy, because you have to invent a shadow of sense that can be described in arithmetic, and then make yourself forget that it is only a description of some logical/modal consequences of sense. > > Keep in mind that with comp, physics does not involve one particular > computation, but all computations at once. > I would hope so. Craig > > Bruno > > > > > Craig > > >> >> 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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.
