On 02 Jun 2015, at 18:57, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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".
By listing what you assume. In the best case, you should do it
formally in some first or second prder logic.
And if randomness doesn't mean an event without a cause what on
earth does it mean?
A superposition seen from the 1p view, or
A self-duplication seen from the 1p view, or
A result of measurement wih inomplete information, or
A string which is not algorithmically compressible, or
etc.
>> 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?
That computationalism might be false. But that is not yet proven too,
as comp implies there is something non computable, but it might be
just the FPI and the quantum FPI confirms this.
> 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.
Physics use a lot of non computable things in the background. That is
why some physicist are interested in constructive or digital form of
physics, but they have not yet grasp that computationalism entails the
existence of non computable events.
>>> 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.
"made" is ambiguous. How can you distinguish an event that you see in
the Milky way, an event that is done in a virtual Milky way, emulated
in the Milky way, and an event done in a virtual Milky "made" in
arithmetic, when seen from inside?
>>> (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.
You systematically beg the question by defining existence, "made" ...
by physical existence, physically made, etc.
No problem with this, except that comp is false, and you have to find
a non-computationalist theory of mind (or find a flaw in the UDA (a
genuine one).
> 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.
I cannot, but that is not the point. The arithmetical reality does it
independently of me, out of space and time. It is only by changing the
definition of computation (for a vague one not yet given) that you can
claim the contrary.
>>> 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.
You mean "do anything relatively to my body", but as we need to
explain the appearance of body from the computations, the point is no
more valid.
> 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?
because he is a mathematician, studying computation. He is not an
engineer implementing computations relatively to us. Again, the point
is that if you agree that 2+2=4 is true independently of you, then the
computations are done, in all possible ways, already in arithmetic,
with the standard sense of computations and implementations.
You remark is similar to the critics of the block universe notion. If
there is a block universe, why not look at it to predict the future?
Of course that is not a valid critics of the block-universe notion.
Likewise, you assume a real physical universe, and then get problem
with comp, but that is exactly what we explain.
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.
You continue your joke, which has nothing to do with the fact that all
computations in the block mind-scape provided by the arithmetical
reality when we assume computationalism.
>> 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.
I have explained this in detail to Stephen King. You confuse level. PA
does not assume the existence of paper, and that has nothing to do
with the fact that the scientist will assume the existence of paper to
publish a paper on PA.
> 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.
The block universe sit there without doing nothing, but that does not
prevent time to be lived by the creature from inside. same happens
with the arithmetical reality once you postulate computationalism.
> 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.
The goal is not doing calculation, but studying the space of all
computations, and extract the appearance of physics in the mind of
some average universal number.
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 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.
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 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.
