On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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) > Regardless of what it is describing "Gödel's self-referential prdicate, []p, that is mainly []p & <>t, (with or without & p)" isn't actually DOING anything, that string of ASCII characters certainly isn't calculating anything, it's just sitting there like a lump. >> > >> And like I said, Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived. > > > > > > He was the first scientist. > You can't be a scientist if you don't believe in the scientific method and Aristotle did not. And Thales of Miletus died 162 years before Aristotle was born, the same difference as between George Washington and actor Kevin Spacey. And Thales of Miletus actually performed experiments with amber that revealed important new things about the nature of electricity. Aristotle and all the greeks after Socrates (and unfortunately many on this list) think that to do physics all you need to do is sit on your ass and think and never need to get your hands dirty with experiments. > > > my point is that his theology is refuted by all Universal machine looking > inward enough. > Well good for " all Universal machine looking inward enough ", how nice for them. > > >>> >> >>> 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. > So a step by step process that produces a particular answer to a particular problem is non standard, but if I print a computer program on a paper and take that paper and run down the street with it then it would be standard usage to say "I am running the program". > > > The notion of computation I use is the original given by Church, Kleene, > Post, Turing, etc. Running is defined by > I don't care because no definition made by anyone about anything can make a calculation. But a microprocessor made of matter that obeys the laws of physics can. > > > a purely arithmetical relation involving > The problem is that "a purely arithmetical relation" doesn't *DO* anything, it doesn't change anything, to actually *DO* something physics is required. > > > I do not assume a primary physical universe > That's OK, the physical universe isn't angry with you over that slight, therefore the physical universe still DOES assume that Bruno Marchal exists. And that is certainly very fortunate for you! > > 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 > Inside or outside everybody has access to numbers, and if numbers are the most fundamental thing there is you are unable to explain why we always need matter that obeys the laws of physics to make a calculation. > > > You are just using the favorite dogma of the Catholics > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. >> >> >> don't blame me for that, you're the one who said calculations don't need >> physics not me. > > > > > > Just read the original papers leading to that field. Or any textbook. > Can those original papers or textbooks make calculations without physics? If so contact INTEL immediately!! > > In the math part, I use only the axioms of RA, > Can RA make calculations without physics? If so contact INTEL immediately!! > > > It exploits known relationship between computability and (sigma_1) > provability. > Can a " known relationship between computability and (sigma_1) provability " make calculations without physics? If so contact INTEL immediately!! > > You are a believer in comp, even a practicer of comp. > I am not a practicer of " comp " or a believer in " comp " nor a disbeliever in "comp". I don't give a hoot in hell about "comp". > > Stop playing with words, > You're the one playing with homemade baby talk not me. 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.
