On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:49, John Clark wrote:
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.
Nor do the schroedinger equation; but you confuse the symbols with
what they are denoting.
> 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.
And the persians made crazy math thousand years before, no doubt. I
was talking to the recent invent, in the "modern" sense related to the
birth of the materialist religion, if you want.
> 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.
Yes, and too bas for those which simulatneously are not looking inward
enough, and not treying to listen to those machines who do.
>>> 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".
If you invoke the necessity of a physical assumption in your the
definition of computation, you are not working with the standard
definition given by Post, Church, Kleene.
> 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.
True. But no one ever said that.
But all numbers can do (different things) relativeley to (different)
universal numbers.
"do" in the sense of Post, Church, etc. Precisely: in the sense of
intensional church thesis.
But a microprocessor made of matter that obeys the laws of physics
can.
Yes, but models of arithmetic can too. (Intuitively or mathematically)
> 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.
"do" is used in the sense allowed by computer science. Once I simulate
a register machine with a diophantine polynomial relation, I can say
"the register machine do this or that", without reminding that this is
emulated by an atemporal diophantine relation, a bit like a digital
block multiverse.
> 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.
The point is that we don't.
We have an infinity of sharable "video game" in arithmetic which
makes us believe, for good reason, that we do need such matter
appearance to compute and share results: it is unavoidable, and that
is why there is no need to assume primary matter exist. We derive the
belief in its existence, and its 1-plural need.
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.
