On 1/19/2015 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 04:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to
change that.
Sure there is. 2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for describing
some things.
I hope you are being flippant and don't really think that disproves what Jason
has said!
If in doubt consider whether the phrase "in mod 4 arithmetic" was necessary to what
you wrote. If it is, then arithmetic remains necessarily so until you can come up with
something that is self-contradictory /without/ any such qualifiers being required.
As you must know from my other posts, I don't consider self-consistency to entail
existence. So the fact that 2+2=4 is true doesn't imply anything about existence.
We suppose that you agree with elementary arithmetic, and notably with the use of
existential quantification.
From 2+2= 4 it is valid to deduce Ex(x + x = 4).
And as we have chosen arithmetic to define the basic ontology, it means that we have the
existence of 2 in the basic ontology. The rest is playing with words.
You know very well that the "E" of symbolic logic is not the same as "exists" in English.
There are different meanings of existence determined by context. Ex(x+x=4) just means
there is number as defined by Peano's axioms that provably satisfies the expression. It no
more proves that 2 exists in the general sense than Ex(x=Holmes sidekick) proves that Dr.
Watson exists.
That you consider "mod 4" to be a qualifier is just a convention of language. If we
were talking about time what's six hours after 1900: answer 0100, because there the
convention is mod 24. But my serious point is that arithmetic is a model of countable
things we invented and it's not some magic that controls what exists.
OK, but then computationalism is false. What is the magic thing you believe in making a
brain non Turing emulable?
I think a brain is Turing emulable by a physical device. You purport to show that numbers
alone are sufficient, but I find this doubtful. I think your numbers must also
instantiate physics to emulate thought. In which case it a physical as well as mental
theory. That's a good thing, but I think it's a theory of reality - not necessarily a
proof that reality must be that.
Brent
Bruno
--
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.
