On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > >>> or A string which is not algorithmically compressible, > > > >> Yes, that is a very good example of an event without a cause. > > > "Event" is a physical notion. Algorithmic non compressibility is an > mathematical notion. >
Nothing caused the 9884th digit of a random number to be a 6 rather than some other digit, and that is the one and only reason it is NOT algorithmically incompressible. But something did cause the 9884th digit of PI to be a 4 and not some other digit, and that's why PI IS algorithmically compressible. > >>>> 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. > > > If you don't care, you would abandon the idea of showing that comp1 > does not imply comp2 > And I'm even less interested in "comp1" and "comp2" whatever the hell they are supposed to be. >>> Physics use a lot of non computable things in the background. > >> Name one. > > > The set of real numbers. > If time or space is quantized as most physicists think it is then the real numbers are just a simplified approximation of what happens in the physical world. Even mathematicians are starting to have reservations about the real numbers, even Gregory Chaitin has started to distrust them and ironically his greatest claim to fame came from discovering (or maybe inventing) a particular real number, the Omega. >>>> 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. > > > Did you mean "made" in the physical reality, by a physical universal > machine, > Of course I mean that! > or did you mean "made" by a immaterial universal machine, like Robinson > Arithmetic? > Of course I don't mean that, unless you know how to build a immaterial machine with material! Couldn't you have figured this out by yourself? > I say that computationalism is false, because you use primitive matter. > Computationalism says you can make matter behave intelligently if you organize it in certain ways, maybe that matter is primitive and maybe it is not but there has been a enormous amount of progress in recent years with AI demonstrating that Computationalism is probably true. There has been zero progress demonstrating that mathematics can behave intelligently. > Why should we abandon computationalism, given that nobody has ever show > the existence of primitive matter? > Nobody has shown the existence of primitive mathematics either. People have shown the existence of computations made by matter (maybe primitive maybe not) but nobody has shown the existence of computations made by mathematics (maybe primitive maybe not). >> 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. > > > > Well, any specification of any algorithm compute what it has to compute > in arithmetic. For example K computes the left projection in arithmetic, > when define in arithmetic. > You can't make a calculation with a definition! > > You are the one saying that "compute" means "compute physically", > I say "compute" means figuring out an answer, nobody has ever done this without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. If you know how to make such a calculation don't tell me about it just make the calculation. Just do it. > To compute is defined mathematically, not physically. > You can't make a calculation with a definition! > > It might be time you give your definition of computation, as we still > don't know it. Then I will show you that I use a different, standard > definition, which has no relation with physics at all. To be frank, there > is a tun of literature by people who search such a physical definition, but > usually recognize they still have not find it. > You can't make a calculation with a definition! >> 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! > > > > I gave this as an exercise to Liz, sometime ago. I explained how RA > compute 2+3. No mention at all of physical device was used. Of course, to > verify this, as we live locally in a physical reality, we use physical > tools to describe all this, > In other words RA can't compute diddly squat. > Again you are back to your Aristotelian assumption. > To hell with those damn idiot Greeks! > If you agree that 2+2=4 independently of me and you, you can certainly > conceive that "2+2=4" is true independently of the universe, > That would be true if you and the entire physical universe were the same thing, but I have a suspicion that might not be the case. > > as "2+2=4" does not presuppose anything physical a priori. > Once more you are just asserting the very thing you're trying to prove, that mathematics is more fundamental than physics. I don't know if that's true or not but unlike you at least I know I don't know. 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.
