Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> You seem to ignore the fact that the history of science did not stop in >> 400 BC; I'm pretty sure there have been some developments since that time. > > > > Yes, a terrible thing, the science theology has been given to the > con-man. Science did stop, or at least get mutilated and lost its head. >
Well that's your problem right there, you stopped paying attention to science in 400 BC. >>> >>> Plato's references to myth are related with parables to explain notion >>> to the people of its time. >> >> >> >> But yet you believe that when Einstein talked about "God" it was >> different, you think he wasn't using a parable to explain something. > > > > Einstein made clear when he use the good lord as a parable and when it is > not. In light of Einstein's many other statements it's obvious that when he referred to "the good lord" he wasn't referring to anything that had a will, free or otherwise. And "the good lord" had no purpose and no goal. And "the good lord" was not a person or even something slightly anthropomorphic. And "the good lord" had nothing to do with ethics. And "the good lord" had nothing to do with rewards or punishments in this life. And "the good lord" had nothing to do with the afterlife because there was no afterlife. So Einstein's "the good lord" and the word "God" as used by 99.9% of the hominids on this planet have virtually nothing in common, certainly nothing devotees would consider of great importance. > >> >> Do you really think >> >> a devote Jew Christian or Muslim would agree with >> >> Einstein when he said: >> > >> " >> I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has >> a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would >> I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death >> " >> >> >> > > No, > > I agree. > > but it is well know that devotees are not scientists. > > I agree again, and it is also well known that devotees outnumber scientists by AT LEAST a thousand to one , so if you are a scientist and use the word "God" in a philosophic discussion there is AT LEAST a 99.9% chance you will be misunderstood. And when Einstein wrote about "the good lord" he wasn't writing in scientific journals but for the general public and so he should have been more careful. He was just asking to be misunderstood. ** > > > you defend the God of the theory due to con-man. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > Read the theology of Proclus, > NO. I'd rather have my teeth drilled. > > >>> >> >>> this confirming for the 56 times that you defend the christian theology. >> >> > >> >> Wow, calling a guy >> known >> for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I >> never heard it before I was 12. > > > > > You can say this a million times, and it will not change the fact > Let's make a deal, I'll get rid of my silly rubber stamp defence if you get rid of your silly rubber stamp attack. > > > You are a more fundamentalist christian than the Pope. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > >>>> >> >>>> You defend with all your force the theology of the fundamentalist >>>> christians. >>> >>> >> >> >> Wow, calling a guy >> known >> for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least >> I never heard it before I was 12. >> > > > > Acting like a bot makes this even clearer. > I'll stop using my silly bot defence when you stop using your silly bot attack. > >> >> In addition the integer 3 *needs* >> the integer 2 to produce the integer 5; and in every single instances >> ever recorded addition *needs* matter that obeys the laws of physics to >> perform a calculation. >> > > > Only to make a material calculation. > ONLY? The difference between a calculation and a material calculation is the same as the difference between Harry Potter and Albert Einstein. > > > Here to talk already like if matter is primary, > No, I talk as if matter is necessary to do a calculation regardless of whether matter is primary of not. The primacy of matter is an unrelated question. > > > You are again using "matter" like if we need to postulate matter for > having a computation, but that is false. > Then for goodness sake stop talking about it and just go ahead and do so and make a trillion dollars! > > > We need appearance of matter to have appearance of computations in our > physical neighborhood, but with Mechanism, that is already proved by the PA > emulated by RA. > So you've solved the problem and there is no reason you can't make a calculation without matter. *SO DO SO!!* > > > That is simply wrong, read Church (not Turing because he use a machine > which look physical, for purely pedagogical reason, and he made clear that > his concept is equivalent with Church). > I have read Church and the reason I haven't started the Lambda Calculus Computer Hardware Corporation is that I know if I want to make a calculation, any calculation, I'm still going to need matter that obeys the laws of physics. Have you read Church? It doesn't seem so. > > > Computation has nothing to do with physical, > Bullshit. We both know the Lambda Calculus Computer Hardware Corporation would go bankrupt very very quickly, but the difference between us is I can explain why and you can not. > > >>> >> >>> and you would not survive at all if the unknown doctor offer you a >>> digital brain. >> >> > >> >> >> Why? >> >> Regardless of whether they're primary or not one thing we know for sure >> is that the Hydrogen atoms in my body do *NOT* have my name scratched >> on them. > > > > If digital mechanism is false, you will not survive with a digital brain, > You're just repeating what you said before. I want to know why. > > > by definition. > By definition? What definition? What the hell are you talking about?! > > >> > >> >> If computationalism is true, you survive no matter what, >> >> You will survive if somewhere in the universe >> > > > Which universe? > #42 > > > as a consequence of the UDA, but no need of the UDA to define computation > Once more you ignore IHHA. > > > physics is reduced to arithmetic in that computationalist (mechanist) > frame. > Even if that were true, and there is no evidence that it is, you'd still need physics to make a calculation. Molecules of water can be reduced to atoms but you're still going to need molecules of water to relieve your thirst. > >>> >> >>> but by using your code without protection, you augment the risk that >>> your code go into bad hands >> >> > >> >> >> If you're right then your code will definitely go into bad hands, and it >> >> will definitely go into >> good >> hands >> too. >> > > > That is not reassuring. > Truth is not required to be reassuring. And suppose for the sake of argument that I'm right, then your chance of surviving is zero, but my chance (with the help of liquid nitrogen) is greater than zero, although how much greater I don't know. > >> >> >> No textbook in theoretical computer science >> can make one single calculation. >> > > > > Indeed, but no textbook realize any arithmetical truth. > I know, and I can explain why that is so and you cannot. > > > You confuse syntact and semantic. > You confuse fiction from nonfiction and truth from falsehood and figural from literal. Just because something is written in a language doesn't mean it must be true, not even if the language is mathematics. > >> >> That's why INTEL makes chips and not textbook in theoretical computer >> science. > > > > because they are interested in the physical implementation of computation, > And they're interested in that because INTEL knows that the physical implementation of a computation can do things that a non-physical computation can not do. But why, what is lacking? If it's not matter that obeys the laws of physics then what exactly is the missing ingredient? Successfully answer that question and you've won this argument. > > You would tell Einstein that his theory is stupid because we cannot do > energy with a formula like E=mc^2, because formula cannot do anything. > No, Einstein's formula tells us how matter behaves under certain circumstances, and a textbook on computer science also tells us how matter behaves under certain circumstances. But you can't make a bomb with nothing but Einstein's formula and you can't make a calculation with nothing but a textbook. > > >> If matter that obeys the laws of physics isn't the missing ingredient >> then what is?? > > > > You don't need matter to implement computations in RA. There is no missing > ingredient at all. > If nothing is missing and you have all the ingredients then stop blabbing and start the RA Computer Corporation and change the world, and make a trillion dollars too. After all you say you have everything you need! > > You so totally confriming that non-agnostic atheism is fundamentalist > bigotry. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. 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.
