On 30 May 2016, at 17:46, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote
>> arithmetic, elementary or otherwise, doesn't
lead to complexity or to anything else. Dawkins like Darwin was
interests in what matter can do (like produce life), and without
matter
> That idea has been refuted.
Where?
Look for example at the papers here (and references therein):
Marchal B: The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body
problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
Marchal B: The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Prog
Biophys Mol Biol; 2015 July;2.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.06.013)
Well, that is the point where you stop at step 3 without being able to
explain why.
> Even without primary matter, arithmetic leads to both the
material complexity
How can you have material complexity if you don't have any
material?
because if the hypothesis of computationalism is true, there is no
(aristotelian) matter. Only appearance in the mind of machine, in the
non physical and mathematical sense of Church, Turing, etc.
> and the non material one.
Show me an example of material complexity but don't use any
material (and that includes electrons) when you do so.
The atmoic physical proposition is given by the set of true sigma_1
arithmetical sentences p (i.e. having the shape: ExP(x) with P
decidable) structured by the logic of Gödel's beweisbar predicate (B)
in the following variant: Bp & ~B~(p), or Bp & p, or Bp & ~B~p & p.
> Your invocation to your God (Matter) not only explain nothing,
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
But then don't invoke an ontological commitment in any argument in the
fundamental matter.
> how does it select the material computations among the non
material one.
Easy, non material computations don't exist.
In which theory?
Now I have a question for you, how do "non material computations"
select the computations that produce correct answers from the
infinite number of computations that do not?
That is equivalent to asking to the guy reconstituted in Washington
why he is in Washington and not in Moscow.
Mechanism explains completely why the machine cannot answer that
question, but also why can explain already why she cannot answer that
question. That is the First Person Indeterminacy.
You are just still stuck at step 3, I see.
> How does it manage to make the non material computations non
conscious?
I'm not sure what "it" is but undoubtedly "it" does "it" the same
way" it "makes non-dragons non-dragons.
Dragons are not conscious and neither are non material
computations, in fact non material computations are not
anything.
You need to make precise your assumption. If you assume a physical
universe, you need to abandon the Mechanist hypothesis.
> Invoking a God (personal or not) will never work in Science.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
>> And Darwin showed how iteration with some random
variation thrown in will produce complexity if the resources
needed for reproduction are not infinite. Or to say exactly the same
thing more simply, Evolution is just random mutation and natural
selection.
> How could we know the mutations are all random. Some are,
some are not. Bacteria already can augment the rate of mutations by
the activity of some genes.
Some genes may increase the rate of copying errors but those genes
have no foresight, they just make the machinery crank out more
mistakes; on rare occasions one of those mistakes might get lucky
and make reproduction more likely, but it's still random.
That shows randomness has been used, not that everything is random in
the evolution process.
> I think that even if evolution is, at some level, "just"
random mutation and natural selection,
Mutation is random but natural selection most certainly is
not! And natural selection could not exist if the PHYSICAL
resources that life needs were infinite, but they are not.
> there is an infinity of intermediate levels showing that
higher level programming can be playing some major role in evolution.
If there is an infinity of anything then it's not physical,
Why? Some physicists have no problem with an infinite physical
universe. Of course, with mechanism it is an open question if the
apparent universe if infinite or not, although it would be
astonishing, but not yet inconsistent that it is finite. Also, the
word "finite" is harder to define properly in the computationalist
context that we feel intuitively.
and thus Natural Selection is impossible, and thus Evolution is
impossible, and thus the spontaneous production of the
complexity needed to produce intelligence is impossible.
> sex is already such a thing. It accelerates the genetical
dialog between individuals, allowing an acceleration of the growing
of diversity.
True, but sex is physical so I don't see how that helps your
argument. Is the integer 42 male or female?
Female of course, like all even numbers (grin).
No problem with your invocation of matter, if you want it, but then
you need to abandon digital mechanism, or explain how the matter
select the computations which exists in arithmetic (as proved in most
textbook of theoretical computer science).
I can explain more on this if you ask for.
> To say that Evolution is just random mutation and natural
selection is like saying that the program Deep Blue is just a bunch
of Nands.
Yes, it is like saying that, and both statements are true. They're
stated in a rather undramatic way perhaps, but are true nevertheless.
That is called reductionism. In this case, it would made everything
but numbers disappearing of reality. You remember me James D. Watson
saying that molecules do not exist: only atoms ...
John, as long as you are stuck at the step 3 of the Universal
Dovetailer Argument, there is no hope we progress in the discussion.
You might as well try to explain to anyone your "refutation" and asks
that person to explain us, as you have failed repetitively in your
past attempts here.
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.
