On 02 May 2016, at 23:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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"!
But "sense" is a contentious word. It has been the object of entire
thread.
If you are serious with the definition you gave, that's OK for me, it
ease the reduction of physics to number, given that "sense", with
computationalism is already defined in term of infinities of (true &
provable) arithmetical relations.
>> 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.
Robinson Arithmetic is Turing universal, and so does emulate the Milky
Way including its self-aware entities, and the action of photon on
retina.
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.
See most of my paper. I proved something stronger, which is that
primary matter cannot be used. Even if it existed, it cannot be used
to single out a computation among the infinitely many which are
emulated "out of time and space" in a tiny fragment of arithmetic.
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.
As material being talking to a material being, I cannot do that. But
that has nothing to do with the mathematical, and unphysical fact,
that 2+2=4. Once we make our hypotheses clear, you can see that number
theory does not rely on any hypothesis of physics. This has nothing to
do with the fact that earthly mathematician needs to suppose the
existence of trains, planes and physical space to go to a congress in
mathematics. You confuse levels of reality. I have already give this
explanation.
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.
because you define "exist" by "exist physically", but that begs the
question.
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.
But the meaning of Turing or Church definition of universal machine or
universal lambda expression does not assume anything physical. Again
that confusion of level or domain.
>> 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.
Can't calculate physically, but can calculate arithmetically or
mathematically.
> 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.
That is a consequence, not a preamble to figure out that 67 is not
divisible by 6.
Gievn the fact that we are interested in the mind-body problem, such a
remark is important, and it would be nice if you could one day give
all your hypotheses. You seem to beg the question by pointing directly
on physical implementation of mathematical notion, which does exist,
but does not prove that the mathematical notions are necessarily
physical.
> 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.
We have defined the Helsinki guy by the series of person which
remember having been the guy in Helsinki. So both the W and the M guys
are admittedly the helsinki guy. That is important for saying that we
can survive a brain transplant.
Then a child can see that although both the M and W guys are the
helsinki guy, their first person experience is currently incompatible
and they have differentiate, and the point is that they could not have
predicted, when in Helsinki, with certainty the outcome of what they
would discover after opening the door of the reconstitution box.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
