On 29 Jun 2015, at 01:34, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Take an intelligent observer counting pebbles on a rocky beach (a
not very wise observer) thus, an unknown quantity, become computable.
A function from N to N is computable if a fixed finite machine can
find the right (finite) output when presented an (finite) input, and
this in a finite time.
Counting pebble is ambiguous. We lack a definition of pebble,
counting, etc.
It's not computable if there's nobody to do the counting.
Well, you might confuse computable and computed.
Once we accept Church's thesis (one half of computationalism) a
function ( a subset of NxN) is computable, or not. Either the machine
exists, or not, independently of the fact that the machine is build or
not.
Do you agree that above 1000^1000 there are still prime numbers? If
yes, such a notion of computability should make sense to you.
In your view, the platonist must incur embedded programs, although
Plato may never have dreamed of a program, or what it was?
Yes, that is the big bomb in Platonism: the discovery of the universal
machine and the notion of programs/machines/numbers/codes. Maybe the
first Platonists would not have appreciated them, as it introduces
chaos in Platonia, but eventually this is what saves platonism and
neoplatonism from inconsistency, even if the price can be judged big:
the long term abandon of the idea of material reality, which appears,
when we bet on mechanism, as a sort of unusable phlogiston.
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jun 28, 2015 11:13 am
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
On 28 Jun 2015, at 15:07, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
My retort is: I am material, I, as a body follow the laws of physics
and chemistry, thus, I am computable, (Does not compute! exclaimed
the Robot from Lost in Space).
It is not obvious that "physical" entails "computable".
Arithmetical, for example, does not entail computable, although the
reverse is true.
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal < [email protected]>
To: everything-list < [email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jun 28, 2015 5:24 am
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
On 27 Jun 2015, at 13:33, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
I was thinking of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, when I wrote
that yesterday. Yet, there are papers based on experiments weaken
the hold that Heisenberg portrays. I am betting that all things are
computable and there is nothing that can be considered non
computable. I guess that at the root of everything that occurs, be
it human spit, or a galaxy, are all based, or derived from
computation. Indeed, that a great computation set off the Big Bang,
and that computation yields everything from stones to stellar gases.
Am I convincing? No. Because I am stating what I suspect is true.
Any and all may disagree. Can love be computable? Well, yes, or at
least aspects of it. Moreover, I don't see where all things cannot
be computable.
This is not a life-long belief, but something I arrived at recently,
after viewing papers and articles in physics and computing. If its
all numbers organized into equations, and equations arranged into
coding, I can't see how I can be wrong.
You described the point which starts this all. But you seem to
forget the FPI. The idea that the whole of physics is computable is
inconsistent. It would entail that "I am computable", and this
entails, by the FPI, that physics is not computable a priori (or
that my generalized brain is the whole universe).
Bruno
Mitch
-----Original Message-----
From: Stathis Papaioannou < [email protected]>
To: everything-list < [email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
On Saturday, June 27, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List < [email protected]
> wrote:
But surely phenomena in quantum physics and Conways Life are random,
but computable?
GOL is deterministic. Quantum mechanics (under any interpretation)
results in true randomness which is not computable. For example, it
is impossible to predict if an isotope will decay in a particular
time period. Under the MWI quantum mechanics is deterministic: the
isotope will definitely decay in one universe and not decay in
another. However, an observer cannot predict which universe he will
end up in, so non-computable randomness returns, despite the overall
determinism.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
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.
--
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.
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 [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.
--
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.
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 [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.
--
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.
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 [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.
