On 11 Feb 2016, at 01:25, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>A purely mathematical Turing Machine is inferior to a
physical Turing Machine
> With respect to be able to manifest a person relatively to
you.
Relative to me and relative to everyone I know and relative to
everyone they know and relative to everyone they know and...
.. in other words mathematical Turing Machines are
inferior to physical Turing Machines relative to all known
instances of consciousness. That's pretty inferior.
Relative to all known instances in the physical reality that you have
to assume to be primitive, but this has been shown to not work, so you
beg the question.
You argument is isomorphic to a creationist who would add that your
universe needs to be baptized by some God.
> But the argument show that the physical must still expalin
where the physical mode comes from.
No more than the mathematical must explain where the
mathematical mode comes from.
But that is exactly what arithmetic does. Indeed it proves the
existence of the modal provability predicate, its fixed points
property, etc.
The chain of "explain this" arguments either comes to an end or it
does not and as a result is infinite;
The end has been given. It needs the "yes doctor" act of faith, and
the mathematical theory needs only the axiom of Robinson Arithmetic
(RA), or any first order logical axiomatization of any Turing complete
theory. Those are enough to show that less than that just cannot work.
Then the observer is defined by anyone believing/asserting/proving
such axioms + the induction axioms, like Peano Arithmetic (PA), and
their existence is a theorem of RA.
if it does end then eventually you come to a primitive brute fact
that has no explanation but just is. If it doesn't come to a end
then nothing is fundamental.
You can chose between Kxy = x + Sxyz = xz(yz), or RA. RA is thought in
highschool.
>> 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.
A script is inert and irrelevant if nobody reads it.
PA proves the existence of an infinity of reasoners, reading all
scripts. PA (even RA) proves the existence of all relative executions
too.
You are the religious which commit an ontological commitment, and use
it to add complexity to make computationalism false, actually.
>> 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.
So if I corrected my HUGE misunderstood of elementary computer
science I'd understand that turning off the computer running my
program halfway through its run would have no effect on the output
of the program.
In the parallel realities, be it in a concrete UD, in Boltzmann
brains, or in arithmetic.
It would affect only the ability of the programs to manifest itself
with respect to you.
And I'd understand that teaching people this fact would make them
better computer engineers; it would make them people Google would
want to hire to run their computers.
>You assume a physical universe,
If there is evidence for something then it is not an assumption
and there is, to put it mildly, evidence that physics exists.
There are serious evidence for physics, not for physicalism. It looks
like you confuse the too. Put differently, there is evidence for a
physical universe/reality, but there is no evidence for a primary
physical universe. That is an hypothesis in Aristotle's theology.
>They emulate each other, even if not emulated in the physical
reality, or you need to abandon the idea that 2+2=4.
You need to abandon the idea that statements like 2+2=4 can be
differentiated from statements like 2+2=5 without using matter that
obeys the laws of physics.
You really need to revise a bit elementary mathematics. RA proves
2+2=4 and ~(2+2=5) without mentioning any notion of matter.
I'm not saying truth doesn't exist without physics, I'm saying in
the entire history of the world nobody has ever separated truth
statements from false statements without using physics.
Only to publish or communicate their result to their physical fellows,
but that is exactly what is shown to be done in RA. So no problem,
unless you reify Matter, which is invalid; unless you assume some
negation of Mechanism.
There would be a problem with Mechanism if the math did contradicts
this, but the whole point is that the math confirms this until now.
And the problem would be for Mechanism, not the proof. I am open to
the possibility that Mechanism is false, indeed I show a prcise way to
refute it, but both Gödel's incompleteness *and* quantum physics came
to the rescue of Mechanism.
>> 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,
Yes but if you're correct how do you explain that, why
should it be? What does a physical brain do that
pure abstract mathematics can not?
By implementing a mechanism. This has been explained in all details.
may be you could read my last papers:
La machine mystique, Logique et Analyse, Vol 55, No 218 (2012)
The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem, Progress
in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 113 (2013), pp. 127-140
The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics
and Molecular Biology, 2015.
> but that does not make the physical primary.
You confuse 2 entirely different questions:
1) Is matter primary?
2) Is matter needed for intelligence and consciousness?
The answers are maybe and yes.
1) implies 2).
You were the one doing the confusion.
And with Mechanism 1) is false, and 2) is false too, unless you
(re)define "primary matter" by what emerges from the sum on all
computations below your substitution level. Then it is arguable that
"primary" matter is needed for human consciousness (but not
consciousness in general).
> It [matter] can still emerge from the infinities of
computations (and thus in arithmetic)
Maybe yes maybe no,
if no, you have to find a mistake in the papers, and the one you
mentioned have been shown by many participants of the list to be read
herring.
there is so evidence either way, but even if it's true that
wouldn't change the fact that if you want intelligence and
consciousness then you're going to have to produce matter at
some point.
You can repeat this a million times, it will not become true.
Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but that doesn't change
the fact that if you want water then at some point 2
Hydrogen atoms are going to have to get together with a Oxygen
atom and make a molecule.
>>I have yet to read a book so good it can think.
Have you?
> Why would a book ever think.
You tell me.
I tell you that this never happens.
You're the one who believes a program doesn't need a computer to
produce a result.
It needs some reality. Not a book or a script. Then the arithmetical
reality has been shown quite enough. Indeed the tiny Sigma_1 reality
is all we need. You confuse reality and description of reality. The
arithmetical reality is not in any book, and can be proved to be
impossible to be captured by any finite books.
> 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).
You have not yet understood that maybe mathematicians are
right when they keep saying mathematics is a language
That is usually said by physicists or philosophers.
Mathematical logicians have refuted that claim.
There is an abyssal difference between the (arithmetical) language, an
(arithmetical) theory and a model satisfying that theory. You confuse
RA or PA with the mathematical structure (N, 0, +, *).
and good mathematicians find statements describing something that
they can write about in that language. You can put language in a
book, language describing something, but nothing happens until
a physical person reads that book.
Relatively to you. Only. That is enough to invalidate your point.
Even Einstein eventually understood, thanks to Gödel, that the idea
that math is a language does not work (see the book by Yalle
Yourgrau). The infinity of primes, or consecutive primes, is
everything but a question of language. For all enumeration phi_i of
the partial computable functions, the fact that a machine i stops, or
not, on input j is not a question of language: it is true or false
independently of you and me.
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.
