On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> I don't want proof of computations, I want computations! > > > > > If you prove the existence of something in something else, you have that > something, > Euclid proved 2500 years ago that there are infinitely many primes, so if what you say above is true you must have the 423rd prime greater than 10^100^100. So tell me what it is! You can't because to have that example, that something, it would have to be calculated; and neither you nor Euclid can do that. > > > indeed a universal machine cannot distinguihs a physical computation from > a non physical one, > I know, and that lack of ability is yet another example of something a non-physical machine can't do that a physical machine can. A physical machine, such as myself, has no difficulty whatsoever in making that distinction. >> >> >> 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. > Somehow I must have missed that post, but if you did it once you can do it again, so just use immaterial computation to find the 423rd prime greater than 10^100^100 and tell me what it is and you have won this argument. How hard can that be? 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.
