On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > "Event" is a physical notion. Algorithmic non compressibility is an > mathematical notion. >
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is incapable of handling 4 coordinates? > >> 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. > > > > I have a counter-example to your claim. Fix a universal system. It > determines completely its Chaitin number, yet it is algorithmically > incompressible. > I don't know what you mean by "fix" but if something requires an infinite number of steps to determine what it will do its not very deterministic. > In some post you argued once that comp1 is trivial, > Bullshit. I have never argued anything about "comp1" and never will because I'm sick to death with "comp" of any variety. >> 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. > > > > Typically, physical quantization is defined by using complex numbers. > Because even if space and time are quantized the discrete steps are so little that complex numbers are a good approximation of the physical world unless you're dealing with things that are ultra super small. > > But again, the point was just that CT does not refer to physics. > Bullshit. >> Computationalism says you can make matter behave intelligently if you >> organize it in certain ways, > > > > That is a rephrasing of computationalism, and what you say follow from > it, but the more precise and general version is that you stay conscious > [...] > To hell with consciousness! Figure out how intelligence works and then worry about consciousness. >> 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. > > > > Mathematics does not belong to the category of things which can behave. > That is a HUGE admission on your part, if it is true (and I don't know if it is or not) then the debate is over and physics is more fundamental than mathematics. End of story. > > But mathematics, and actually just arithmetic can define relative > entities behaving relatively to universal number > And I can define a new integer that has never been seen before, I call it "fluxdige" and it's definition is that it's equal to 2+2 but it's not equal to 4. You can't make a calculation with a definition! >> Nobody has shown the existence of primitive mathematics either. > > > > Primitive means that we have to assume it. Logicians have prove that > arithmetic, or universality, is primitive in the sense that you cannot > derive arithmetic, or the existence of universal numbers, without assuming > less than that. > When Peano came up with the integers he had to first assume that the number 1 existed and then he came up with rules to generate its successor, but if the physical universe did not exist, if there were ZERO things in it, then it's not at all obvious that the number 1 would exist. Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't, I don't know. One of your Greek buddies Socrates said that the first step toward wisdom is knowing when you don't know. So if Socrates was right then I'm wiser than you are. > Computations have been discovered in mathematics. All textbooks in the > filed explains that. > You can't make a computation with a textbook! > You can't make a calculation with a definition! > > > > You can. > Then stop talking about it and just do it! > > And if it is simple enough, you can do that mentally. You will tell me > that in this case we still need a physical brain > Indeed I will. > but this can be a local relative notion, > Local? A good rule of thumb is that if a theory says "Local" means the entire multiverse then things may be getting out of hand. >> I say "compute" means figuring out an answer, nobody has ever done this >> without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > > You are right, but this does not prove that the notion of matter is used > in the definition of computation. > Who cares about the damn definition? You can't make a computation with a definition! > > To do something materially we need matter > Yes, but if mathematics is more fundamental than physics it's not obvious why that should be the case. > > PA and formal systems compute things without doing the computation > physically. > Bullshit. > > Kleene invented his famous predicate and got his normal form theorem for > the computable function by using the arithmetical existence of the > computations only. > Then why isn't there a Kleene Computer Corporation with a trillion dollar valuation? >> If you know how to make such a calculation don't tell me about it just >> make the calculation. Just do it. > > > > KKK ===> K > Oh I see the light at last, that explains everything! If you want to be a trillionare you'd better file a patent on "KKK ===> K" immediately. > That arithmetic is more fundamental than physics will be a non trivial > consequence of computationalism. The point is that this is testable. > That is true it's testable, the test is to make a computation, any computation, without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Do that and the debate is over, mathematics is more fundamental than physics. End of story. 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.
