On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have >> >> grave >> >> doubts >> >> about >> >> the existence of computation in arithmetic; certainly >> >> nobody has ever seen >> >> even a hint of >> >> such a thing. > > > You are dead wrong here, as we don't need a hint, we have a proof, >
A proof can't make a single calculation, but a silicon microprocessor can. > > and it is in all textbook in mathematical logic. > And a textbook in mathematical logic can't make a single calculation either, but a silicon microprocessor can. > > Unless you allude to a notion of "physical computation" which has not been > defined. > Physical computation means just what it seems to mean, computation done physically; if you still find that response unsatisfactory then you need to define define. > > > physical existence of the physical implementation of arithmetical > computation. That is possible. > I agree, I am certain that exists, I am far far less certain about the existence of the mathematical implementation of physical computation. > > > You can emulate the (universal) computation even with only diophantine > degree four polynomial. > And yet for some strange reason INTEL still uses silicon and not diophantine degree four polynomial. How odd. > > You are unaware of what is a computation in computer science. > It is finding a particular solution to a particular arithmetical problem >> >> If you know how to do that then for God's sake stop talking about it >> and just do it, start the Sigma 1 PARA Hardware Corporation >> and change the world! >> >> > > > Straw man. > Straw man my ass!! If somebody claims to be able to do something it is not unreasonable to ask to see them actually do it and not just talk about it. If you are correct about arithmetic being able to make calculations without the help of physics I can see absolutely no why the Sigma 1 PARA Hardware Corporation would't be a *HUGE *success, and yet nobody including you wants to start such a company. How odd. > > The notion of computation does not assume silicon, nor QM or anything like > that. > If so then "the notion of computation " can't actually perform one single calculation, but a silicon microchip can. > > >> >> >> >> you accept comp, > > >> > I do not accept "comp". > > > > You do. > No I do not. > > > > >> > Comp is put for computationalism. > >> > No it is not. Over the years I have heard you say hundred > s > maybe thousands > of times "according to comp this and according to comp th > a > t", > > > Because that hs been proved, published, peer-reviewed, and accepted > It's certainly not accepted by Wikipedia, it lists 29 passable meanings of "comp" and not one of them has anything to do with AI or consciousness or computations or anything you're talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comp Google doesn't know what the hell you mean by "comp" either, try it for yourself. >> >> I am >> still >> unable to form a coherent picture of what >> you're talking about >> ; >> but I have a >> very >> clear understanding of >> >> computationalism >> so I know that >> whatever "comp" is it certainly isn't computationalism. > > > > > Because you stop at step 3, > Because you made a blunder in step 3 that you won't or can't fix. Who in their right mind would keep reading a proof after they found a flaw? > >>> >> >>> >>> You need a physical reality only to implement a physical computation. >>> But that is trivial, >> >> > >> >> Try telling the stockholders >> >> and >> >> scientists >> >> at >> >> INTEL it's trivial! > > > > > Straw man again. > Try telling the stockholders and scientists at INTEL it's a straw man!! 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.
