On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> "An event without a cause" is a metaphysical or theological notion. In > the type of approach I have develkoped, you would need to make clear all > the assumptions. > I can't do that until you make clear what you mean by "make clear". And if randomness doesn't mean an event without a cause what on earth does it mean? > >> nobody has ever seen anything in the physical world that was not >> computable. > > > > I can agree with this. > Then do you think maybe that fact is trying to tell you something rather important? > > Although we can't find anything non-computable in nature, the physicists > still use a highly non computable theories and ontologies. > Physicists only deal with things in nature so they have no need to worry about non computable stuff, and a good thing too because if a physical theory is non computable there is no way to prove it wrong and thus it is not science. > >>> Church thesis only equate a notion of intuitive computability, an >> ability to get a result following discrete well determined elementary >> digital steps, with computability in some formal system > > > >> Only?! > > > I meant without the need of assuming or using explicit concepts of > physics. > It is intuitively obvious that no computation can be made without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >>> (lambda calculus, etc.) > > > >> And one of the "etc" is a Turing Machine, a device made of matter that > obeys the laws of physics. > > > Come on. Most textbooks define a Turing machine by a non empty and > finite set of quadruples, where a quadruple is an expression (a finite > sequence) of symbols chosen from q1, q2, .... (called "state" symbol), S0, > S1, S2, ... (tape symbols) and with the L (do on the left), and R (go on > the right symbols). > That's nice, but as I've said before you can't perform a calculation with a definition. And a textbook is just ink on paper, it can't perform a calculation either. > > the UDA problem can be defined by finite sequence of instantaneous > description brought by a (universal) Turing machine. > That's nice, but as I've said before you can't perform a calculation with a definition. >>> It does not require the assumption that there is a physical universe. > > > >> A Turing Machine does assume matter that obeys the laws of physics, > > > Not at all. > It does if you expect your Turing Machine to actually do anything. > > matyazevic will shows of Turing machine can be emulated by diophantine > polynomial relations (hardly physical stuff). > If Mr. Matyazevic really knows how a Turing Machine can be emulated by non-physical diophantine polynomial relations then why doesn't he stop talking about it and just do it? Why doesn't Mr. Matyazevic go into the computer hardware business and start the Diophantine Polynomial Corporation and become the world's first trillionaire? I think a computer chip company with zero manufacturing costs would be a wonderful business model. I sure wish I knew how to do it. >> and a Turing Machine is equivalent to Lambda Calculus. And in fact all >> Lambda Calculus calculations need to be performed on something, > > > > This means that you have not study the papers > Please explain how I can study those papers without using my brain which is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > Programs need only a universal program to be executed. > Programs need more than other programs to be executed! ALL programs need hardware, otherwise they just sit there doing nothing. > we need to postulate only one arbitrary universal system, and extract the > laws of the apparent winners by a statistics on computations. > Postulates do no better than definitions, you can't make a calculation with a postulate either. 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.
