On 14 Feb 2016, at 03:05, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> You argument is isomorphic to a creationist who would add
that your universe needs to be baptized by some God.
The difference is it can be shown that objects unbaptized by God
can still do a lot of things, but if its unbaptized by
Physics nobody has ever seen anything do anything.
Assuming primary matter exits, and defining "doing things" by "doing
things physically", but in our context this is just aristotelian
pseudo-religious begging of the question.
Obviously, 2 divides 4 without any help of physics, as it only means
that there is a number z such that 2 * z = 4 is true.
> PA proves the existence of an infinity of reasoners, reading
all scripts. PA (even RA) proves the existence of all relative
executions too.
PA has never proven a damn thing and never will.
PA proves "~beweisbar("0=1") -> ~beweisbar("~beweisbar("0=1")") is a
very well know fact.
Beweisbar (provable) is an arithmetical predicate. That is the most
basic things to undersatnd, bith to grasp the second incompleteness
result, and what we are discussing about.
Giuseppe Peano may have proven some things but then Giuseppe
Peano had a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics.
You don't know that. And we know today that this is just false if we
assume digital mechanism.
> You really need to revise a bit elementary mathematics. RA
proves 2+2=4 and ~(2+2=5) without mentioning any notion of matter.
RM has never proved a damn thing and never will. Raphael Robinson
may have proven some things but then Raphael Robinson had a brain
made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics.
> 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.
I agree. As I said before I don't dispute that truth exists
independently of physics in the same same way that David existed for
millions of years inside a huge block of marble before a artist
(Michelangelo) happened to remove the parts of the marble block that
were not part of David; but if you want to separate true statement
from false statement you are going to need matter that obeys the
laws of Physics.
Wrong. the arithmetical truth is independent of both arithmetical
proofs and physical proofs.
> You confuse reality and description of reality.
You confuse what works from what doesn't; and machines made of
nothing but pure mathematics DON'T WORK.
They don't work in the physical reality, but with mechanism, the
physical reality has been shown to be emergent from self-reference
through the non physical emulation of the machine in arithmetic.
It is up to you to tell us what a physical machine can do that a
universal machine cannot do, and if you succeed then you juts refute
digital mechanism, and make my point in a direct way.
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.
