On 07 Sep 2015, at 19:11, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be
emulated
Bullshit.
No, it is a theorem in computer science. Keep in mind that computer
(universal machine), computations, emulation are used in the original
mathematical sense of Turing. Those are arithmetical notion. The
notion of physical computation is a different notion, and is defined
by assuming a physical reality and assuming that the physical reality
can implement in some physical sense a computation in Turing sense.
>>> 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!
What? This is just wrong. In arithmetic you do have a simulation of a
fortran program elumating an algol program emulating a quantum
computer emulating the game of life emulating ... There are arbitrary
long chain of such simulation, even circular one. The notion of level
is defined at the start in computer science or in arithmetic (or in
combinatr theory, etc.). I have given the definition already, reread
them, or buy a book in computer science.
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?
?
I have just done it in the preceding post.
Ah! you even quote it below.
Why can't a simulated water program get the computer wet?
Because you can't create primitive matter, by definition of primitive
matter. But Arithmetic can simulate water making wet a computer.
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,
So wrong. But I know, you tell me you don't want open a book in
computer science, so ...
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;
Yes, as being primitive. But then you must assume primary matter,
which is not only not part of computationalism, but is precisely what
the argument shows to be epistemological impossible, or even logically
impossible with the usual weak occam.
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.
It does not, except if you assume the existence of some primitive
water, and some non Turing emulable property needed to qunech your
thirst, but then you assume non-computationalism, by the very
reasoning given.
So you beg the question.
> 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.
By definition of primary matter or primary hardware. But nobody has
ever given an evidence that such a thing exist. You argue like a
creationist who would say that the theory of evolution is wrong as it
does not expain how God made this in six days.
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.
Indeed, that's the point: we have to explain the stability of the
illusion, as the illusion itself is very easy to explain. What UDA and
its translation in arithmetic shows is that such a problem can be
translated itself in arithmetic, and we have extracted a quantum logic
from that reformulation, and up to now, thanks to the QM-without-
collapse, computationalism fits well with nature.
> 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,
To manifest itself relatively to another.
why don't you just emulate that hardware in arithmetic?
That is not enough, it must be emulated the right infinity of times
(to be short).
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?
The apparent primitive matter is, on the contray, shown to be non
Turing emulable. It relies on the whole actual infinities of
computations in arithmetic, because matter is an appearance emerging
from the indeterminacy on all computations. matter is non clonable,
and non Turing emulable. Computationalism entials the falsity of
digital physics, as I have mentioned many times.
>> 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.
Proof? (to prove this, you need to assume primary physical matter, but
then computationalism is false, or you do have a determinist algorithm
to predict the FPI, which you have claim, but never succeed to show us.
Also, as I predicted in advance to myself, you confuse the
reperesentation, and the computation, and if I explain this in detail,
I will have to represent the representation, and you are back with
your move 1p => 3-1p, 3-3-1p, etc.
It is like with the modus ponens in Hofstadter's GEB book. It
illustrates that if someone decide to kake to not understand the modus
ponens, we can never explain the error.
And those ARE pixels on a screen,
If such things exist, which I find non plausible, and is not assumed.
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.
You confuse the finger and the moon.
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.
No, we assimed the RA axioms, and then I can only give you a
representation of the computation, which you can perfrom in your
brain, but that is not obligatory. You confuse the finger and the
moon, in a context where it is easy to do so.
> here the computation is done in RA.
Don't tell me that, show me that!
I just did.
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.
You are ridiculous. Computations can be done in RA. usually I debate
with person which claim that it can only be done in RA, not in a
physical universe, which can only approximate the computations done in
RA.
>> 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.
I will not insist, as we are now in just elementary computer science.
Computation is defined in arithmetic. It is up to you to define me
"computation" if you are using the term in a non standard sense.
> 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.
But that prime number existence does not depend on its computation,
which exist also in arithmetic.
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.
Then you bet on ultrafinitism, but then computationalism is false.
Comp requires elementary arithmetic, if only to make sense of the
Church-Turing thesis.
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 .
It is not gibberish, and the guy can make a prediction, like it will
be either W or M. You say ambiguous, or gibbersih, but "first person
indeterminate" is much better, as it points to an uncertainty calculus.
Do you find this a surprising development? Do you think it has
profound implications? I don't.
Normal, you are still only at the step 3, and taold me you have not
read the sequel, so I don't see why you should see already the
implications, if you have not find all this by yourself already.
>>> 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.
Sure, but the question is not were John Clark will be, but where he
will feel to be, and here we know in advance (in "Helsinki") that he,
or anyone fr that matter, will never feel to be in both place.
Here, you abstract again from the question which is about the next
experience, not where such experience will take place.
Sorry John, but you go in circle, and just do the same trick again and
again. Nothing new, and nothing which could put a doubt on the FPI of
the step 3.
Bruno
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.
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.
