On 10 Feb 2016, at 03:26, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> To use a universal machine/number in the physical reality,
you need to implement it in the physical reality.
Yes I've noticed, and there must be a reason for that fact. A
purely mathematical Turing Machine is inferior to a physical Turing
Machine;
With respect to be able to manifest a person relatively to you. But
the argument show that the physical must still expalin where the
physical mode comes from.
in fact it would not be going too far to say it is infinity inferior
because one can produce answers and one can not.
relatively to you here and now, but that is only a solipsistic form of
"superiority", not a conceptual or ontological one.
>> Show me a example of Robinson Arithmetic calculating
*anything* without using matter that obeys the laws of physics and
I'll take your ideas seriously.
> I gave you many references.
Like hell you did! And you just admitted above that such a example
does not exist.
...physically, relatively to you. But that does not change the point
made, that you seem to not address.
> You need just to understand how the truth of some
arithmetical relations
You are exactly correct, my physical brain needs to understand
Robinson arithmetic and follow the script for it to be able to
produce a result.
And physics is not mentioned in that script.
> it is a standard result that you can emulate a Turing machine
in Robinson Arithmetic.
Conway's game of LIFE can't emulate a Turing Machine or anything
else if the computer running the LIFE program is turned off, and
neither can Robinson Arithmetic.
Physicalist huge misunderstanding of elementary computer science. You
assume a physical universe, then you use it as a god-of-the-gap, to
evacuate a simpler explanation. Common error made by creationist and
the like.
> Indeed, all Turing complete system can emulate each others.
Only if they're implemented in matter that obeys the laws of
physics.
Again false. They emulate each other, even if not emulated in the
physical reality, or you need to abandon the idea that 2+2=4.
>But, unless you changed your mind on the fact that 2+2=4 is
true independently of you,
Truth is independent of me but the ability to separat true
arithmetical statements from false ones is not independent of physics.
Physics has nothing to do here. Unless you make the physical having
non Turing emulable role for the mind, but then Digital Mechanism is
false.
>you admit to stop at step 3, for reason that you have not yet
been able to make clear.
Then I will try to make them clear, I stopped reading when things
got silly.
But the only silly thing you show was your confusion about 1-self and
3-self.
> Physics has already been shown to be needed for consciousness
Then what are we arguing about?
Physicalism (not physics).
> What is not needed is that the atoms, or time, or space, or
energy are primitive.
Molecules are certainly not primitive and neither are atoms, but
both are needed to produce consciousness. It's irrelevant if space,
time or energy is primitive or not because you can't make
consciousness with nothing but primitive stuff; consciousness needs
complexity.
There is more complexity in arithmetic than in the observable universe.
> If you agree that you don't have to drink two times two beers
to get the truth of 2+2=4
I don't have to do any drinking but if I want to know how much 2+2
is I have to think about it, and to think about something I need a
physical brain.
You, yes, but that does not make the physical primary. It can still
emerge from the infinities of computations (and thus in arithmetic)
going through your actual digital state.
> Arithmetic emulates all machine possible experiences
Not without physics it doesn't.
Then your opinion contradicts computer science, from its very start.
> read a good book on this
I have yet to read a book so good it can think. Have you?
Why would a book ever think. Here you make humor, but you still betray
that you have not yet understood the difference between a computation
(like those emulated in arithmetic) and a description of a computation
(like those we can find in books). It is the sempiternal confusion
between the digit pointing toward the moon and the moon, or between
the true fact that 2 + 2 = 4 and some sentence asserting that 2 + 2 =
4 in some language.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
