On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: t > > > he same set of axiom, ZF, can have a model verifying AC and a model > verifying ~AC, >
Yes, we've known that since 1963 and therefore AC is independent of ZF. > >> >> 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? > > > > > To share the computations that they are living. To manifest themselves > relatively to each other. > > Even the people in arithmetic needs hardware to do that. > Yes I know they need hardware, and I have a explanation why, your explanation makes no sense. > > > But us, from outside the arithmetical reality we can see that their > hardware are given by the internal FPI limits. > I don't see the relevance Fixed P oint I teration has to all this. > > > hardware is not something which exist, it is only an appearance. > Even if that is true Is it important, what does " only an appearance " even mean? How would things be the slightest bit different if matter did not just appear to exist but did exist? > > > Arithmetic let physics emerging from the (arithmetical) computations, > > and the physics let human to implement computations in it. > I don't see why you're so certain that isn't backward. There is ZERO evidence that arithmetical computations independent of physics even exists, but there is plenty of evidence that physical matter exists. So why wouldn't it be more likely that arithmetic is just something that helps humans understand how matter behaves? > > > And that relation is not transitive, > But why? Even a high level computer language can access a machine language subroutine when needed, so when a human wants to make a computation why can't he do the same and bypass to tedious physical matter stage and make calculations without matter? > > If we are machine, physics is a branch of machine theology > I have no opinion on that because I don't know what the word " theology " means in Brunospeak. > > > I don't want introduce too much technical jargon here. > That's not technical jargon that's homemade jargon, aka baby-talk. > >>> >> >>> 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. > > > > > I said that if primitive matter is assumed in the theory, then you cannot > be a machine, > I can't see why. Matter can be primitive and still be generic, in fact if it's truly fundamental, a brute fact, it would more or less have to be. > > > and you should say no to the doctor to remain consistent. > I can't see why . I am just the way atoms behave when they're organized in a johnkclarkian way and all hydrogen atoms are identical so replacing one with another would make no difference. > > you would not criticize a theoy like QM fro not being able to make a pizza, > but you do that critics for RA. > To make a pizza a chef is required. A theory can't make anything, without matter nothing can make anything into anything. Mathematics is eternal and static; if you want change (such as thought) you need matter. > > > You are confusing the theory and what is supposed to be explained by the > theory. > You are confusing the explanation of an act with the act itself. 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.
