On 29 Sep 2015, at 23:51, John Clark wrote:
snip
And that my friends is exactly why examples are so superior to
definitions, it avoids the absurd "define that word" endless loop
that people always use when they're losing a debate.
So by asking example when I give a definition, and asking a efinition
when I give example is just to win the debate, and not to progress in
understanding.
> The problem is that you give the impression that you believe
that computation does not exist in, or be emulated by, arithmetic.
I'm sorry if I only gave a vague impression of that so let me say
as flatly and directly as I can that as of today there is ZERO
evidence that arithmetic can calculate anything without the help of
physics;
Because you use the term computation in the sense of Church-Turing.
They do not assume anything physical to define computation.
that situation could change tomorrow but that's how things are right
now.
> I exploit the fact that sigma_1 complete provability is
equivalent with universal computability.
Mathematical objects may or may not exist independently of
physics, but mathematics proofs certainly do not; proofs are just a
way humans have of discovering (or maybe inventing) those
mathematical objects.
I use "prove" in the purely mathematical sense of Gödel.
> Saying that there is a physical universe doing that is no
better than saying God made it.
Saying that there is a mathematical universe is no better than
saying there is a physical universe.
I say only that 0+ x = 0, and things like that. I define computation
and proof without assuming more. Then I explain why the immaterial
machine develop beliefs in matter, and why the math shows that such
matter obey quantum logic, and how to derive physics.
Bruno
And the physical universe at the time of the Big Bang was far
simpler that the universe is today, and was infinitely simpler than
a omnipotent omniscient God. Bruno you're a logician so you tell me,
if two logical systems produce the exact same conclusions but one
starts out with fewer and simpler axioms than the other which one is
superior? I think William of Ockham made a pretty good razor,
there is no point in adding wheels withing wheels if they're not
needed.
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.
