On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> A simulation is never 100% accurate,
>>
>
> >
> This not correct. In Virtue of the digitalness, a simulation can be 100%
> accurate,
>
Only if the numbers a computer uses are actual numbers not simulated
numbers.
> >
> notably when simulating a digital process.
>
Then it's not a simulated
digital process
, it's just a
digital process
.
> >
> There is word for "100% accurate simulation", we call that an emulation.
> The models of RA emulates all computations.
>
Don't tell me this wonderful news tell INTEL, their stock price will
skyrocket! And I own some INTEL stock.
>
> You can emulate in algol a fortran computation of the factorial function.
> It will be 100 % accurate
>
It will be 100% crap unless the Algol or FORTRAN program is running on a
computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> >
> This does not make possible to extract the computations result directly,
> as we live in a physical reality, and must implement the computations in
> the physical reality to get that effect.
>
Why on earth would that be?? If the emulation is perfect and physical
reality is of only of secondary importance and is being emulated by
mathematics then we live in mathematical reality too. So why can't we
extract the results of computations directly?
> >
> that relative emulation of that process is emulated itself infinitely
> often in arithmetic.
>
If physics is being emulating by arithmetic then we who live in the
physical world are being
emulating by arithmetic
too
and should be able to make arbitrarily large calculations instantly. If
however its the other way around and physics is emulating arithmetic then
it would be easy to explain why we can't make such calculations.
> >
> here you make a constant confusion of level
>
You can't make up your mind if X is emulating Y or Y is emulating X and
I'm the one who makes "
a constant confusion of level
s"?
>
> You confess having not read the works,
>
Bragged would be a better word than "confessed", only a fool would keep
reading a proof after he found a error.
>
> You involve yourself into an ontological commitment (that is religion)
>
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> >
> You proceed like a creationist,
>
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> >
> I did not ever dreamed about someone confirming so well that strong
> non-agnostic materialist atheism belong to fundamentalist religion.
>
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.
