On Tue, May 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to >> make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of >> physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × >> 2^13018586 + 1 are. > > > >>> Opportunist fallacy. > > >> Fallacy my ass! Science demands evidence, if somebody claims they can > cure cancer the claim is not enough, even a detailed description of how > they intend to cure cancer is not enough, they must actually cure cancer. > And so I don't want to hear any more about how you can make a calculation > without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics, I want you to > actually do it. Just do it and you've won the argument. > > > Straw man fallacy. >
I thought it was the "opportunist fallacy". Lets get our fallacies straight around here. > >Nobody can do a physical computation out of a physical reality. > Nobody has ever been able to perform a computation of ANY sort without matter that obeys the laws of physics and nobody has even come close, nobody has ever come within a billion light years of being able to do it. > > The question is not about doing a computation, but about the existence > of computation in the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) arithmetical > reality, which provably emulates all computation, > It can't emulate a damn thing unless the "block-mind offred by the (sigma_1)" exists and if it does then produce it and have it calculate 1+1. Do that and you will have won the argument. > > but obviously not in a physical, or locally reproductible way. > Or to say the same thing with different words, not in a way that corresponds with reality, or to use yet different words, not in a way that isn't Bullshit and a complete waste of time. > > Indeed the physical will emerge from those computations, "already there" > in the block-mind or block-computer science reality. > Then do so! Starting from pure mathematics tell us why it would be a logical absurdity for the proton to be anything other than 1836 times as massive as the electron and for the neutron to be 1842 times as massive as the electron. Explain what's so special about those two numbers, do that and you'll have won the argument and as I've said I will personally pay for your first class airline ticket to Stockholm for the ceremonies. >> "Effectively" means in such a manner as to achieve a desired result, > > > > With CT, it means computably. > It means a mechanical method, and nobody has ever made one single calculation using a non effective method, in fact the ONLY thing anybody has ever produced with a non-effective method is randomness. That is the sum total of non-effective method's accomplishments to date, the only thing we know for sure it can do. > > you abandon the excluded middle principle, which is in comp, > I don't abandon the excluded middle and I don't care if it's in "comp" or not because "comp" bores me. And don't tell me it's just short for computationalism because I know what computationalism is and whatever the hell "comp" is it's not that. 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.
