On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be emulated > Bullshit. > > >> >> >> >> The fact that computations exist in arithmetic is a trivial theorem. >> > > > >> > You keep saying that, and yet in spite of the fact that it would be > trivial for you to do so you have been unable to explain why you have not > started The Marchal Computer Hardware Company and you have been unable to > explain why you are not a trillionare. > > > > This is frankly ridiculous, as the point is that hardware is a relative > notion in arithmetic. You are again trying to confuse the level. > There are levels in physical stuff like physical computer hardware, but there are no levels in computations! So I ask again, given the fact that unlike real water simulated computations have *ALL* the properties of non simulated computations and the two are absolutely indistinguishable, and if arithmetic really is more fundamental than physics then why can't you actually* SHOW* me a calculation made without using matter and the laws of physics rather than just wave your hands and repeat over and over that it can be done? Why can't a simulated water program get the computer wet? Why haven't you started The Marchal Computer Hardware Company and why aren't you a trillionare? > > > Arithmetic can emulate the wetness of water for an emulated subject, > There are no levels in arithmetic, a simulated computer does not perform simulated arithmetic it just does arithmetic, and the arithmetic it performs is just as real as the arithmetic a non simulated computer performs or that a human does. And yet although a computer can use arithmetic to produce simulated water that simulated water is lacking some of the attributes that real water has; but if arithmetic really is more fundamental than physics I have grave difficulties in understanding why that arithmetic produced water should be lacking any attribute the physical water has, like the ability to quench my thirst. > > > But of course, we cannot make something physically wet > [...] > To simulate hardware per se is so much impossible I know it's impossible, I want you to tell me why. If physics is more fundamental, that is to say if a physical object has properties that numbers don't then it's easy to explain why, but if numbers are more fundamental it's far more difficult to explain why. > > > that this is a part of the reason why I do not believe such "primary" > hardware exists > If primary computer hardware does not exist then why is it necessary to perform a calculation, why don't you just emulate that hardware in arithmetic? You certainly have accessed to arithmetic so what I really want to know is why haven't you started The Marchal Computer Hardware Company and why aren't you a trillionare ? >> >> I don't want to google "Kleene predicate" and I don't want another >> "proof" and I don't want a definition!!! I want an *EXAMPLE*, I want to >> see you or anybody or anything else calculate 2 +2 without using matter! >> > > > > > Ah? Here is one, but please don't confuse what follows with the pixels > which represent it on the screen: > s(s(0)) + s(s(0)) > s(s(s(0)) +s(0)) > s(s(s(s(0) + 0) > s(s(s(s(0)))) > I see nothing above performing any calculations, you're just writing first grade arithmetic problems in a different notation, and your physical brain caused you to write the above rather than 2+3= 2+1 or 4+0= 5. And those ARE pixels on a screen, the only reason they have some meaning for me is that your physical brain and my physical brain are similar in that we both are familiar with that notation, to a martian with a different physical arrangement they would just be pixels on a screen and nothing more. If you use a more common notation and write 2+2 =4 those ASCII characters are not performing a calculation either, they're just reporting to me a calculation that your physical brain has already made. > > > here the computation is done in RA. > Don't tell me that, show me that ! If calculations can really be done in RA then there is absolutely positively no reason you can't start the RA Computer Hardware Company and become a trillionaire . >> >> I don't want to read any textbook >> , I don't want to read >> Gödel's original paper >> ! >> I want >> an *EXAMPLE*, I want >> to see you calculate 2 +2 without >> using >> matter! > > See above. > Why? You've written nothing relevant above. > > > This does not need any matter, like the existence of a prime number bigger > than 1000^(1000^(1000^1000)) does not require matter. > But calculating that prime number most certainly *DOES* require matter. And if the computational resources of the entire universe are insufficient to produce that prime number even in theory then I'm not entirely certain it would be meaningful to say it exists. Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't, the answer is not obvious to me. > >>> >>> But that is ambiguous, because if the guy (who remembers being the man >>> who was in Helsinki) is now in both city, >> >> >> >> YES, and that is exactly precisely why asking what one and only one city >> "you" will see in a world with "you" duplicating machines in it is not a >> question at all, it is gibberish. > > > > But that is exactly what is refuted by all copies. The copy having > 01100001 in his diary is able to recognize "I was unable to predict that". Yes, I am unable to answer a gibberish question about the future . Do you find this a surprising development? Do you think it has profound implications? I don't. > >> > >> >> >> >> ignoring that when your body is in tow places, all your possible >> subjective experiences' content mention only one place. >> > > >> > Who's subjective experiences are only in one place? > > > > The subjective experience of each copy. > If both are John Clark, and Bruno Marchal said they were, then obviously John Clark is NOT in only one place. John K Clark > I will answer your next post if it contains something new. > -- 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.
