On 8 February 2014 07:48, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:43, LizR wrote: > > Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion. >> >> It has nothing to do with physics. >> >> I must admit I was quite surprised by this. I thought you generally argue > that physics can be extracted from comp, and TU is part of comp (isn't it?) > > Ys, but that is why it is meaningfull to say that we derive physics from > zero physical assumption. > > We derive physics from TU, which is defined in pure arithmetic, and has > indeed no relation at all with physics *in his definition*. It involves > only 0, successor, and the * and + laws, nothing else. > > Of course arithmetic and TU has something to do with physics, *at some > level*, assuming comp, and well, in the psychology or theology of the TUs, > which is itself derived from arithmetical self-reference. > > But this means that physics has some plausible relation with the UT. The > UT itself, at his definition level, is a purely arithmetical notion. > > OK? >
Yes, of course. I was getting the cart before the horse, as they say. TU has nothing to do with physics but physics may have something to do with TU. -- 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.
