On 24 Sep 2015, at 01:26, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> the existence of particular computations and emulations of
computations by other computations can be proved already in Robinson
Arithmetic.
I don't want proof of computations, I want computations!
If you prove the existence of something in something else, you have
that something, in that something else.
If you want a physical computation, you need only to pray that a
physical reality exist, and rich enough to be Turing complete, as it
*looks* to be the case, and then you can build a computer, which can
run physical computations. but that does not make the many non
physical computation to continue to exist in arithmetic, and indeed a
universal machine cannot distinguihs a physical computation from a non
physical one, from its experience only: it needs to do 3p measurements.
>There is a continuous and a diecrete quantum teleportation
technic
I don't know what that means. But I do know that Quantum Mechanics
can't deal with distances smaller than 1.6*10^-35 meters; if
distances smaller than that exist then Quantum Mechanics will need a
MAJOR overhaul.
>>I'm just playing devil's advocate,
unlike you I don't claim to have proven anything.
> Proving is my job. That is what I do. That is what
mathematician does, in math or in applied theoretical field. When I
say that RA proves the existence of the terminating computations, I
am saying a standrd result.
Very standard indeed! Every mathematician knows that some
computations terminate, and some computations don't terminate, and
for some computations there is no way to know if they terminate or
not and all you can do is watch it and see.
Exactly, but that makes my point. Each time a computation terminates,
RA can prove that facts; like the universal dovetailer can run on all
terminating computations, although it has to dovetail on all
computations, terminating or not, to get all the terminating one.
> You oppose this by introducing a notion of physical
computation, which you have not yet define.
I can provide something much much better than a definition,
I can give A EXAMPLE.
I gave you an example of an immaterial computation too.
> even if physics is quite important. the fundamental science
is theoretical computer science
I do admit that sometimes physics papers about entropy and Black
Holes look a lot like papers in computer science or information
theory.
OK, and I think that computationalism suggest explanations for this
since a long time.
Bruno
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.
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.
