On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > The constructible set of Gödel can be use to show that ZF and ZFC proves > the same arithmetical theorems. That is incorrect, ZF can not prove that the Banach-Tarski construction works, ZFC can. What Godel discovered in 1938 was that the theorems that ZF can prove will produce no contradictions if you assume that the Axiom of Choice is TRUE; what Paul Cohen discovered in 1963 was that the theorems that ZF can prove will produce no contradictions if you assume that the Axiom of Choice is FALSE, thus in 1963 we knew that ZF has nothing to with choice and that's why it's called a axiom. >> >> If a axiom has been verified, that is to say if it can be derived from >> other axioms, > > > > > I meant verified in a model, not prove in a theory. > In this case ZF is the model. > > > If a proposition is verified in a model, its negation can still be > verified in another model. > Yes, a set of axioms other than ZF could derive the Axiom Of Choice and yet another set of axioms could derive the negation of the Axiom Of Choice . > > But of course richer theory can prove more theorem ZF is intuitively true and it is powerful, although not powerful enough to derive the Axiom of Choice; finding another set of axioms that are equally intuitive but even more powerful is not easy. >> >> >> Yes perfectly true, you need physical hardware. But my question is* WHY*? >> The only answer can be that physical hardware has something that >> "arithmetical truth" does not. > > > > > Then you artificial brain is not Turing emulable, and computationalism is > false. > The above statement does not compute. In other word the above statement is bullshit. > >> >> We may not be certain what that something is but the fact that computer >> hardware companies have non zero manufacturing costs is proof that one >> has something the other does not. > > > > > No, because that relative cost exost also in arithmetic reelatively to the > people emulated in arithmetic. > That is another statement that does not compute; emulated people have access to arithmetic just like non emulated people, so regardless of if they are emulated or not why do the employees at INTEL bother to use silicon? >>> >> I need to implement the universal machine in that hardware. > > > >> > >> > >> Y >> es exactly you need to implement it, but to implement it mathematics >> needs help, it needs physics! >> > > > > We agree on this, > Good. > but that is not a proof that hardware exist, > If " W e agree on this " and if computations exist then physical hardware exists. > >> >> >> >> Numbers ==> computations ==> dreams ===> physical reality ===> physical >> computation ===> hardware company >> > > > >> > OK, but the hardware company certainly has access to numbers so why > doesn't INTEL just make calculations directly and forget about all that > unnecessary and expensive messing around with silicon? > > > > Because if we want to share computations, we need to implement them > And you agreed above that physics is needed to do that, physics can do something that arithmetic can not. > > > in the first person plural reality that we share to begin with. but that > reality is itself emerging from infinitely many computations in arithmetic > Then I was right, matter can do something arithmetic can't, a finite amount of matter can embody a infinite amount of mathematics but a finite amount of mathematics can not. >> >> arithmetical truth >> is certainly lacking something that physics has. >> > > > > That is a theorem in machine's theology. > No, that is a machine in theology's theorem. Hey... if words no longer have any meaning I can arrange them in any sequence I want just like you do. > > >> >> >> >> like someone can emulate Einstein's brain >> > > > >> > Then that emulation is Einstein. > > > > > Better: that emulation makes it possible for Einstein to manifest itself. > You can call it "manifest" if you like or "implement" or "emulate" or "simulate" but the fact remains that if you want anything to change anything in any way you're going to need physics, there is no evidence that mathematics by itself can do a damn thing. > > >> >> >> >> making a course in GR without any understanding of GR. >> > > > >> > Then Einstein didn't "understand" GR > > > > No, you confuse the level. > Like hell I do! > The guy who manipulate the pages of the book can talk with Einstein, but it does not become Einstein by emulating it! I really REALLY hope I'm misunderstanding you and you're not refereeing to S earle and his imbecilic Chinese room. > > > ZF can prove that PA is consistent. > But can not prove that PA is complete and that's a good thing because if it could then ZF would be inconsistent because there are true statements that PA can not prove. > > > Theology is a science. > Then either "theology" or "science" has no meaning, and I was right, at this rate of word destruction grunts will soon be our only means of communication. > >> > >> Then >> p >> rimitive matter >> is more fundamental than arithmetic. QED. >> > > > > OK, but then we are not Turing emulable, and you need to explain me what > magical thing, or actual infinite, you are using for that primitive matter > to select the computations, or just abandon comp, and revised the contract > asking for them to keep intact the actual infinities in the primitive > matter of your brain (good luck explaining them what you mean). > I can not parse that sentence, it does not compute. >> >> >> Can RA also give an answer that INTEL stockholders would accept to >> explain why shutting down all their silicon chip fabrication plants and >> just ordering their employees to meditate about numbers didn't turn out to >> be a wise business move? > > > > RA cannot do that anymore than you can make a pizza by solving Everett > Dewitt Wheeler Universal Wave Equation. > I know that RA can't do that and I know that the Wave Equation can't do that and I also have a explanation *WHY *they can't do that, but you do not. > if comp is true [...] I don't care if "comp" is true. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
