John,
Nothing new here. I am sorry, but I have already answered all the
remarks you make here.
Please, reread my answers, and debunk them, without simply repeating
the same arguments.
And no: Robinson arithmetic is not Mr. Robinson.
Bruno
On 03 May 2016, at 23:34, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
It's not just you but I have found that whenever I back somebody
into a corner they demand a definition, and if I'm foolish enough to
comply I can only do so with words, and then of course they demand a
further definition of at least one of those words. And round and
round we go.
And sense is not the object of this thread and I should know because
I started it. The object is memory and intelligent behavior although
you keep talking about consciousness, a soft subject because unlike
intelligence there is no way to prove a consciousness theory wrong.
> If you are serious with the definition you gave
In general I'm far FAR more serious about examples than
definitions, a child does not learn how the world works through
definitions but through examples, and a AI would do the same.
> Robinson Arithmetic is Turing universal,
Mr. Robinson was made of matter that obeys the laws of physics,
and so was Mr. Turing, and so were all the books you read to learn
about what they wrote. And you are made of matter that obeys the
laws of physics too.
>>> this does not mean that primary matter is needed on that
process.
>> Prove it.
> See most of my paper.
My? Are you made of matter that obeys the laws of physics?
Is paper made out of pure numbers or out of fibers of cellulose
pulp?
>> 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.
Obviously you can't but if you're right there is no reason you
couldn't. If everything is made of numbers then why are you
"material" but the number 42 is not? You must have some
property that the number 42 does not and I know what it is.
> we make our hypotheses clear, you can see that number theory
does not rely on any hypothesis of physics.
Yes, and that's why number theory can't add 2+2 without the
help of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> 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.
Alan Turing existed physically, Harry Potter did not. Is that
begging the question too?
> the meaning of Turing or Church definition of universal
machine or universal lambda expression does not assume anything
physical.
And that's why non physical Turing machines are static and do
nothing unless the physical is thrown into the mix.
> Again that confusion of level or domain.
Then relieve my confusion by explaining why JK Rowling didn't
confer physicality onto Harry Potter. All of Rowling's books can be
encoded as one large integer so what's the problem? Was it that she
wasn't good enough at arithmetic or was it because matter has
something that numbers alone can't produce?
>>A non-material Turing machine can't calculate, or do
anything else.
> Can't calculate physically, but can calculate arithmetically
or mathematically.
Sounds like the same con game the Catholic Church pulled with
transubstantiation, yes it passes all physical tests for being
ordinary run of the mill bread and wine, but *REALLY* it's the body
and blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Yes a non-material Turing
machine looks like it's doing nothing, but *REALLY* it's calculating
like mad. Just trust me, would I lie to you?
>>> 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.
I would maintain that if there was nothing, that is to say if
there were no physical thing, then neither 6 nor 67 nor any other
number would exist because there would be nothing to count and
nobody around to count or even to think about numbers.
> 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.
When the physical is removed mathematical notions ALWAYS
become inert. What more more proof do you need?
> We have defined the Helsinki guy by the series of person
which remember having been the guy in Helsinki.
Then what do we need those damn diaries for?
> So both the W and the M guys are admittedly the helsinki guy.
So the answer to the question "what city will you the Helsinki man
see?" does not have a unique answer.
> the point is that they could not have predicted, when in
Helsinki, with certainty the outcome
But they could have predicted that the question was stupid.
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.
