On Tue, May 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > That was straw man >
First iteration. > > 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? > Yes. > >That's a straw man > Second iteration. > >>> 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. > I keep asking for experimental evidence to backup the moonshine you're peddling, it's a little thing called the Scientific Method. > I don't need to refer to anything physical, as I am not talking about > physical implementation, > Sounds like transubstantiation, physically it's bread and wine but *REALLY* it's the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And if you believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. > You confuse > Yeah yeah I confuse. > >>> 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 > To hell with qualia! Whenever you get stuck you start babbling about qualia. You say physics emerges from pure mathematics and logic so you should be able to tell me what's so special about the numbers 1836 and 1842 from a non-physical point of view. > >>>> "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 > Yes and all correct equations are too; the wonderful thing about tautologies is that they are always true. > > again on the verge of straw man. > And the magic word is "strawman"! > >> in fact the ONLY thing anybody has ever produced with a non-effective >> method is randomness. > > > > You are more distracting than wrong. > Sorry I distracted you with reality. > > you confuse, > Yeah yeah I confuse. > > and straw man repetitions. > Speaking of repetitions [....] 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
