On 02 Nov 2015, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> 2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only
way to segregate the numerical relationships that express a
truth from the many that don't is to make a calculation, and the
only way anybody has ever made a calculation in the entire
history of the world is by using matter that obeys the laws of
physics.
> Then you reject the excluded middle principle.
No. If sentence X says "2+2=5" then sentence X expresses a
numerical relationship, that association may or may not belong to
the category "true" but it's certainly a relationship. The problem
isn't that true mathematical relationships don't exist it's that
false ones do too,
In physics and the everyday life too, but why should we take into
account false proposition into account?
and the only way anybody has ever been able to separate true
statements from false statements is by using matter that obeys the
laws of physics.
The whole point of realism is that the truth is independent of the
fact that we verify them. If not, you could say anything, both in
physics and in arithmetic.
In G we have [](p & q) <-> ([]p & []q), but we don't have [](p v q) <-
>([]p v []q). Indeed, we have [](<>t v ~<>t) trivially, but we don't
have []<>t v []~<>t.
And that is my explanation for why INTEL makes microprocessors out
of silicon and not out of definitions and theorems;
INTEL use silicon because he wants that the object or people supported
by its computation can manifest itself relatively to our most probable
computations in arithmetic.
Bruno, you have no coherent explanation for that fact.
That is why this is part of the hard problem of consciousness, and my
goal was to show exactly this.
That is far from being enough to refute computationalism and its
consequence, as the alternate theories do not exist or are fairy
tales. Then, the math part shows indeed that the logic of the
observable obeys a non trivial quantum logic, which shows that the
normality of silicon/or-similar, and its local necessity to have
physical stable computations, might still be a consequence of
computationalism, as it should indeed.
Comp predicted the many-computations, which arguably are confirmed by
the fact that physicist came up with the idea independently of the
computationalist reasoning, then the math confirms the quantum
mathematical structure, and the symmetries of physics at the bottom,
and perhaps the linearity of evolution. From the symmetries, and
Noether-like theorem, we might get enough to have the unicity of the
standard model (like recent works in quantum logic suggest). Anyway, I
do not defend the truth of computationalism, I just point on the
difficulties, that you seem to begin to comprehend.
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.
