On 23 Oct 2014, at 02:23, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
I haven't looked at it in years, if you put a gun to my head I could
no longer even tell you what steps 0, 1, or 2 were or if it was in
step 3 that I decided that the entire thing was worthless or if it
was in some other step, and nothing you have said more recently
makes me think it deserves a second look.
In other words, you've spent a lot of time hurling invective at
something you don't actually know anything about.
No, in other words several years ago I started to read Bruno's
"proof" and stopped reading when I made the determination that he
didn't know what he was talking about.
Nothing Bruno has said since then has made me think I made the wrong
decision. And as my brain doesn't not have infinite storage capacity
I must pick and choose what to put into long term storage and
Bruno's "proof" didn't make the cut.
No. You have pretended that something did not follow, but when asked
what you have offered until now, as Liz just said, are semantical
quibbles. + hand wavings, mockeries of the entire field, and many ad
hominem unfair allusions.
In the original thesis, as I was told that I might have some jury
member allergic to thought experiences, I manage to use them only to
motivate the technical definitions of the modal "probability
one" (with S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*). AUDA (the arithmetical UDA), technically
does not need UDA. It makes the reasoning embedded in computer
science, indeed even in arithmetic.
But you are providing evidence that some people propagate rumors like
if there was something controversial about what you call "my proof",
which is only the formulation of a problem, and the attempt of
solution is AUDA.
To negate the step three, you have to build a robot able to predict
its first person diary continuation in a WM-like duplication. As Kim
remarked, the impossibility of this can be understood by kids. Then
AUDA exploits the fact that we can even explain this to "enough rich"
machine, using the recursion theoretic tools, and defined in
mathematics, indeed in arithmetic, what we mean by
"understand" (indeed using Gödel's provability predicate or variants).
Do the work John. If not, try at least to be more cautious with the
words. Only idiots pronounce judgement on what they do not
understand. Want to play that role? Be my guess.
The problem for you, is that the very tone that you are using will not
help you to change your mind. I do suspect you have had the aha! more
than one time, but then you prefer to stop the thinking and come back
with your attitude of "nobody can doubt physics is the fundamental
science". That dogmatic attitude will just prevent your ability to
conceive other fundamental theories. Many physicists are open to the
idea that physics might eventually be explained mathematically, with
or without comp, like on the other side number theorists flirt with
fundamental physics, almost for their pure number theoretical
motivation.
You got the idea that consciousness is not localizable, but it seems
that you fail to appreciate the consequences on this for having a
theory unifying what we can observe and shared, what we can live and
experience, what we can conceive, and what we can hope + the minimal
amount of the inconceivable (here limited to 0, s(0), s(s(0)) ... with
their addition laws and their multiplication laws). Here "we" is for
the ideally arithmetically sound machines.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
