Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 That means peepee. > > or a result of measurement wih inomplete information, That start of randomness is subjective, a function of the observer not of the thing itself. > or A string which is not algorithmically compressible, Yes, that is a very good example of an event without a cause. > > or etc. I'd like a little more detail on the "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. What the hell! Computationalism says that intelligent behavior is caused by physical computation, so how does the fact that nobody has ever seen a computation that wasn't physical imply 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. I don't care, I'm not interested in "comp" or of the Foreign Policy Institute. > >> 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. Name one. >> It is intuitively obvious that no computation can be made without the > use of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > "made" is ambiguous. Bullshit. > You systematically beg the question by defining existence, "made" ... by > physical existence, physically made, etc. Existence is ambiguous. > > No problem with this, except that comp is false, OK fine, "comp" is false. And now that we both agree that "comp" is false can you please stop talking about "comp". > >> I've said before you can't perform a calculation with a definition. > > I cannot, but that is not the point. But that is exactly precisely the point! If I said I had a proof of the Riemann hypothesis but I refuse to show it to you or to anybody else would you take me seriously? If you say non physical stuff can make a calculation, any calculation, I'm not going to believe it until you show me some non physical stuff that is actually calculating something. > The arithmetical reality does it independently of me, Then have it do so and end this debate right now, have non-physical arithmetical reality calculate the solution to a problem from a first grade arithmetic book! > >>>> 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", Obviously I mean that because if it can't do anything relative to my body then it's invisible, and being invisible and being nonexistent look rather similar. > but as we need to explain the appearance of body from the computations You would only need to do that if you assume the very thing you're trying to prove, that mathematics is more fundamental than physics. >> 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. So Mr. Matyazevic is making invisible computations and I have a invisible proof the Riemann hypothesis. As I've said, being invisible and being nonexistent look rather similar. > > Again, the point is that if you agree that 2+2=4 is true independently > of you I'm certain it's independent of me but I'm not certain it's independent of the entire physical universe; if 4 things didn't exist in the entire physical universe, or even two, then I'm not certain 2+2=4 would have any meaning, and even if it did I'm not certain who would be around to find it meaningful. > then the computations are done, The 2+2=4 computation has been done but the computation to find the 10^100^100 digit of PI has not been done and it is probably impossible to compute it in the physical universe, so I don't know if that digit can be said to exist or not. Maybe yes maybe no. >> 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 I'm not joking, if he really knew how to do what you claimed he knows how to do, make calculations without matter that obeys the laws of physics, then he'd revolutionize the world, and become a trillionaire too. > You confuse level. PA does not assume the existence of paper, I think people of Pennsylvania believe that paper exists. 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.
