On 06 Oct 2015, at 04:29, John Clark wrote:
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.
Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal, and it can not only
compute all computable functions, but compute them in any possible way.
> 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.
No, the problem is that in "computation done physically", what do you
mean by computation? If you mean it in the usual standard sense, then
that is OK, but then all I say is that no Turing machine can aver
distinguish an arithmetical computation from a physical one, without
external clues.
> 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.
But I was talking on the computations in arithmetic. None of them are
physical a priori, because the physical will be an appearance emerging
from the FPI statistics on *all* of them. Arithmetic can simulate a
silicon processor simulating a Turing machine, but arithmetic might
not been able to simulate exactly the silicon atom, as it cannot
simulate 2^aleph_0 computations at once.
> 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.
No, that is not odd. INTEL sold machine for physical computations. But
the point is that with computationalisme, we must justify the
existence of the appearance of the physical computations from the
arithmetical one, or from any Turing universal system.
> You are unaware of what is a computation in computer science.
It is finding a particular solution to a particular arithmetical
problem
Hmm... Not quite close.
>> 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.
You confuse "that physical entity can do this computation", with the
arithmetical reality (a tiny part of the standard model of RA) emulate
(in the sense of Church-Turing) this computation".
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.
lol
>>> 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 that",
> 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.
Of course, I use that abbreviation only in this list. it is a private
thing between us, to avoid typing something like "the computationalist
theory of mind", or "the computationalist hypothesis in cognitive
science".
>> 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?
Everyone interested in the domain, it might help to fix the blunder,
or to realize the blunder is not relevant, or that it was not a blunder.
You are the guy who has been shown believing that 0 = 1, remember? You
want suffer again or what?
I challenge anyone else to explain your refutation here. Up to now all
your tricks have been debunked in all details. The last one, based on
deliberately missing the difference between the first person and third
person view has been debunked many times. Everyone saw through you.
But if you want push the ridicule even more, go for it: try to
convince someone else to explain your point here.
Bruno
>>> 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.
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.
