On 12 Oct 2015, at 16:45, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>Store the entire contents of Wikipedia on the tape of your
Turing machine and then retrieve that information or explain to me
why you are unable to do so.
> It is a trivial theorem of arithmetic that there is a Turing
machine which store the contents of wikipedia.
I don't give a hoot in hell if there is a trivial theorem of
arithmetic that says there is a purely mathematical Turing
machine which stores the entire contents of
Wikipedia;
But what I say, and seem to have contested is depending only of that.
I want you to do something very different, I want you to
actually store the entire contents of Wikipedia in a purely
mathematical Turing machine.
That has no meaning for me.
And if you can't do it (and you most certainly can not
do it!) I want to know why you can't if as you say mathematics
is more fundamental than physics. I think the reason may be that
mathematics is NOT as fundamental as physics, and
so theorems of arithmetic are not as important, and
not as true, and not as real, as the laws of physics.
All right. No problem. But then computationalism is false, by the UDA
reasoning, and we are back to your problem of finding a flaw. So
please reread the critics of your refutation and answer them.
> Just read any book on the subject.
No book on that subject or on any other subject can perform a
calculation, but a silicon microprocessor can.
> I already gave you the definition by Davis.
No definition by Davis or by anybody else can perform a
calculation, but a silicon microprocessor can.
> Nothing physical is assume,
And no calculation is performed.
> It describes the realities accessible from the different
points of view.
If it's not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics no
calculation is performed from ANY point of view.
becuse you use an identity thesis between mind and "real matter",
which is inconsistent with mechanism.
> You just use a no standard not well defined notion of
physical computation. When you define it, you use the mathematical
notion, and add that you take only the physical computation as
existing.
That is because physical computation is the ONLY type of
computation that anyone has ever observed in the entire history of
the world.
Platonist does not believe in what they observe. You assume Aristotle
theology. No problem, but you need to abandon the idea that the brain
is Turing emulable, or find a flaw in the papers.
The evidence for Bigfoot or flying saucers or the Loch Ness
monster or Elvis Presley being alive is far better than the evidence
for non-physical computing.
That is wrong. We don't need any evidence for non-physical computing,
as computation is an arithmetical notion. You could say that none has
ever observed a prime number as well.
Bruno
> Your use of materialism is similar to the use of God
[...] and you confirm for the nth time that non-agnostic atheism
sides with religious fundamentalism.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
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.
