On Mon, May 2, 2016 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. >
And I did. > > > let us not enter word game. > If you don't want to play word games then DON'T ASK ME TO DEFINE "SENSES"! >> >> 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? > Yep. > > > What was physical reality before the apparition of life? > Unlike the number 42 a photon can directly effect the senses and thus subjectivity today and could have done the same thing back before animals evolved if subjectivity existed back then, which it didn't. So by my definition a photon is physical and the number 42 is not. > 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. > Prove it. I don't ask that you do anything as grand as produce consciousness or intelligent behavior, just add 2 and 2 and provide an answer without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Do that any you've not only won the argument but I will be the first to invest in your new computer hardware startup in Silicon Valley. A hardware company that has zero manufacturing costs because it needs no hardware will soon be bigger than Google and Facebook combined. > > > No universal machine can distinguish an arithmetical emulation of a > physical reality emulating them, or a physical emulation of a physical > reality emulating them, > No universal machine can even exist without matter that obeys the laws of physics. And I remind you that Turing's paper on the subject was, as the name suggests, made of paper; and paper is composed of matter as is the brain that first thought it. >> >> A numbers can't process another number without a intermediary. > > > But that intermediary can be any Turing universal system, material or > arithmetical > A non-material Turing machine can't calculate, or do anything else. > > What is the role of matter concerning the truth that 6 does not divide 67? > You (a thing made of matter) are unable to take a pile of 67 rocks (things that are also made of matter) and form 6 equal but separate piles of rocks from them. That's how mathematicians figured out that 6 does not divide 67, although early mathematicians may have used physical fingers more often than physical rocks. > > > 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. > And the Helsinki guy wrote "I am in Helsinki" but Mr I wrote that yesterday, today there is nobody in Helsinki; so where is Mr. I today, W or M? Does the question have a unique answer? No. 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.
