On 24 Oct 2015, at 07:32, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
In arithmetic all emulation of programs exists,
That is totally unimportant, It's not worth arguing about
because it wouldn't change anything even if it were true. But I'll
tell you the REALLY important question, is physics a emulation of
arithmetic or is arithmetic a emulation of physics?
Physics is what is observable. The "computable physical certainty" is
described by the intensional variant of Gödel's self-referential
prdicate, []p, that is mainly []p & <>t, (with or without & p)has
morivated by the First person indterminacy, on the UD*, that is, on
the Sigma_1 sentences.
Physics is a mode of self-perception. It is the mode []p & p, []p &
<>t, or []p & <>t & p, and the last one are graded through box and
diamond, and quantization (the "[]<>#") iterations.
Ypu don't need to believe in any of this. Just understand a bit of the
intuition, then study how this is translated in arithmetic.
>>> 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 have repeated this straw man argument a lot,
Straw man my ass, if what you say was true the universe would be
RADICALLY different from the world we observe, the world where
people have to pay money for INTEL silicon microchips.
You need to prove this, and that would actually refute
computationalism. But when we do the math, this fails, as a
rrefutation of computationalism, as the "probabiility one" needs to
bey the self-reference bet given above, and they do the quantization
needed for having a good measure. We do get the projections and its
orthoalgebra, and we can work toward some Gleason theorem.
Advantage? The logic splits on truth/justifiable, justifying
indirectly yhe non-jutfifiable, and explaining the difference between,
the different views: first person, first person plural, third person,
etc.
> You do bad theology, like some fundamentalist. you invent a
God
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> Like I said, you are a fundamentlist Aristotelians.
And like I said, Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever
lived.
He was the first scientist. he could have been wrong on everything, he
was clear enough to be refuted and by this way he provided the path on
the progresses which follows.
And then my point is that his theology is refuted by all Universal
machine looking inward enough.
>> 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.
> False. Physics has no relevance at all here. What I
said is true in both the case where the Algol interpreter or
compiler run [...]
Run? RUN! Without physics nothing is running, your FORTRAN or
Algol program is just static squiggles on a paper doing absolutely
nothing.
Using a non standard, but common, sense of running. The notion of
computation I use is the original given by Church, Kleene, Post,
Turing, etc. Running is defined by a purely arithmetical relation
involving a universal number and some universal or not numbers.
I do not assume a primary physical universe, I agree that such a
physical universe is apparent, but that is explained by the existence
of some measure on the computations when seen from inside: the
observable is an indexical.
As an argument, you beg the question. You are just using the favorite
dogma of the Catholics: primary matter; which to my knowledge has been
technically used only on the question about the relationship between
wine and the blood of christ. But yes, it is a common extrapolation by
humans, and part of the current paradigm in both physics and many
theologies.
I show it to be inconsistent with Descartes' idea that our body are
mechanism.
Most people believe in both mechanism and materialism, but that does
not work together.
>>> 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?
> Because that would be magical.
Indeed it would be but don't blame me for that, you're the one who
said calculations don't need physics not me.
Everyone in that vast field would say the same. Just read the original
papers leading to that field.
Or any textbook.
In the math part, I use only the axioms of RA, for what I need to
assume, and I interview PA, executed by RA.
It was a PhD in theoretical computer science. It exploits known
relationship between computability and (sigma_1) provability.
> and should be able to make arbitrarily large calculations
instantly.
> Yes, comp predicted that this is possible,
I don't care what "comp" predicts because "comp" is one colossal
bore.
You are a believer in comp, even a practicer of comp.
Stop playing with words, because that confuse people for nothing.
You only don't believe that comp entails what I say. But you have not
find a critics of the reasoning, as all you argument confuse at some
point the first person description and the third person description.
You have lost that debate.You just conveniently stop at the early step
of the reasoning, without having succeeded to convey any reason why to
anybody, as any body can see where you make the confusion, and many
have patiently try to make you, not seeing it, but admitting it.
There is no evidence for primary matter, and with comp, it is a
theorem that a complex web of all computations exists in arithmetic,
and that it get self-structure from inside by self-referential
correctness.
And it provides an arithmetical interpretation of the five affirmative
hypotheses of Parmenides, the five hypostases of Moderatus of Gades
(neopythagorean) and of Plotinus (neoplatonisme).
You like to say that Aristotle was wrong in physics, but you full
stream resist the doubting of its metaphysics.
Bruno
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.
