On 02 May 2016, at 03:30, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> If it's physical then if it is of a large enough magnitude
it can impact one of the senses without any intermediary.
> And how you define "senses"?
And now ladies and gentlemen it's time to play the
definitions game! Tell me how you define "define". Then tell me
how you define "define "define"".
You said that you define physical. let us not enter word game. I just
show you to complete what you begun.
Sorry I don't want to play that game, instead I'll give you
something much MUCH better than definitions, I will give you
examples; sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste.
So the physical reality is based on those animals abilities? What was
physical reality before the apparition of life?
>> That's why a number like a billion is not physical, it has a
large magnitude but a billion of something is needed to effect the
senses, a billion alone can't do anything. A number is a idea, and a
idea needs a physical brain to think it.
> You accept computationalism, or digital mechanism.
Yes, I accept that generic matter and the laws of physics can be
used to make a arbitrarily large number of copies of you that are
indistinguishable from the original you both objectively and more
importantly subjectively.
OK. Me too, but this does not mean that primary matter is needed on
that process. No universal machine can distinguish an arithmetical
emulation of a physical reality emulating them, or a physical
emulation of a physical reality emulating them, without adding some
magic in that primary matter.
>You should understand that a number can get sense only
relatively to a universal number processing it.
A numbers can't process another number without a intermediary.
But that intermediary can be any Turing universal system, material or
arithmetical or combinatorial, etc.
Without matter that obeys the laws of physics a number can't do
diddly squat.
What is the role of matter concerning the truth that 6 does not divide
67?
If you' really think I'm wrong then go to Silicon Valley and start a
company on this new revolutionary idea; and I'd bet money none of
the companies already there are going to try to steal your idea.
??? (I have already debunked that argument).
> I use the standard definition of Gödel for the 3p-self, and
thanks to incompleteness I can use the theatetical variant of it for
the 1p-self, although I get nuances between justifiable, knowable,
observable, and sensible, which are variate aspect of the first
person points of view. The math is the standard theory of self-
reference. textbook:
Textbooks don't have a 1p or a 3p and don't go peepee.
Sure. A person is not a textbook, nor did I ever say that.
> and the 3p you is the unique 3p diary
I've never understood this obsession of yours with diaries
! The diary is duplicated just like the person so what does the
diary tell us that the person's testimony does not?
The 1-diaries are duplicated, but not the 3-diaries. That is the
difference. The 3-diaries contains the statement JC is in W and in M.
But the 1-diaries contain "I am in W", and "I am in M" respectively.
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.
