On 19 May 2015, at 18:41, John Clark wrote:
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.
That was straw man, like the next below.
>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.
Do you think that some people might believe I ever disagree with this?
That's a straw man, if I remind correctly Liz definition of 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.
You keep asking me to change water in wine.
What I can do, is explain the definition of emulation in arithmetic,
and why we can say that the model (in the logician sense) satisfies
propositions about computations and their relative implementations.
I don't need to refer to anything physical, as I am not talking about
physical implementation, but arithmetical implementations.
Implementing a computation in arithmetic did not make people rich, but
those who did it the first became famous like Gödel for the primitive
recursive functions, Church, Kleene, others, on the partial recursive
functions, etc.
> 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,
To physical reality? If you prove that a computation does not exist in
the mathematical reality, you prove that it does not exist in the
physical reality.
The point is just that the classical (in the sense of of the Church
thesis used in comp) theory of computation does not borrow physical
principle, and UDA indeed will show that we have to extract the
physical principle by a modality of self-reference.
or to use yet different words, not in a way that isn't Bullshit and
a complete waste of time.
It is computer science.
You confuse people by failing to appreciate the difference between
computer science and physical computer science. Both are very
interesting, and they are related, indeed that is what will be under
scrutiny.
> 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.
I just formulate the problem, and provide the tools, and have derived
(three) quantum logics playing some role around quanta and qualia, in
a testable way, and confirmed by QM (but would have been refuted if
physics was Newtonian).
>> "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,
That is tautological, and you are again on the verge of straw man.
in fact the ONLY thing anybody has ever produced with a non-
effective method is randomness.
You are more distracting than wrong.
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
Then you agree that (N, 0, +, *) satisfies the separation between true
and false sentences, in a non effective way.
and I don't care if it's in "comp" or not because "comp" bores me.
Yet you practice it, saying yes to a doctor whi is probably not yet
born.
And don't tell me it's just short for computationalism because I
know what computationalism is
OK, but you have not yet understand what mathematicians means by
computation, you confuse that notion with the notion of physical
implementation. That exists, and plays a key role in UDA, but it is a
different notion than computations, ad defined by the logicians who
discovered them.
and whatever the hell "comp" is it's not that.
Then you have to find a flaw, instead of ad hominem remarks, and straw
man repetitions.
Why did you not jump on my proposition to explain step 3 in a more
refined decomposition. It shows precisely where you stop the thought
experience, vindicating an ambiguity which comes only from your
decision to abstract from the 1p/3p distinction after the split.
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.
