On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> arithmetic >>>> , >>>> e >>>> lementary >>>> 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): > All the papers that I have seen written by you, or by anybody else, are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, please point me to some that aren't but don't use matter to do so. > > (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.06.013) > No that just won't do, electrons are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > >>> >> >>> 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. > Well of course there is no aristotelian matter! Aristotle was a nitwit when it came to physics and was wrong about everything. > > Only appearance in the mind of machine, in the non physical and > mathematical sense of Church, Turing, etc. > OK, but how can you have a machine without matter that obeys the laws of physics? > >> 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. > No that just won't do, electrons are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >>> how does it select the material computations among the non material >> one. > > > >> Easy, non material computations don't exist. > > > > In which theory? > In no theory, in something far more important, in observation. > >> >> 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. > No that it isn't equivalent because that would be a stupid question and my question was not. There are an infinite number of ways to process numbers just as there are a infinite number of hypothetical ways life could change over time, but in fact life only does so by one method, random mutation and natural selection, and I can tell you why. Random mutation exists because the laws of physics insist that perfection is unobtainable, and natural selection exists because nothing physical is infinite including the physical resources life needs to reproduce. So answer my question, there are an infinite number of ways to process numbers but only one way produces the correct answer and I want you to explain why "non material computations" only picks the correct one. > > If you assume a physical universe, you need to abandon the Mechanist > hypothesis. > Doublethink: Love is hate, peace is war, and mechanics is not physical. >> 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. > You need to take a high school course in Evolution. Of course everything is not random in the evolution process! Natural selection is half of Evolution and it is *NOT* random. > >> If there is an infinity of anything then it's not physical >> , >> > > > Why? > I don't know why, all I know is that physicists have never shown anybody an infinite number of anything. > 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 > Matter can be arranged to make a digital mechanism whose output is inconsistent with arithmetic just as easily as one that is consistent with it. Easier actually. It all depends on how the matter is organized. > > as proved in most textbook of theoretical computer science > Textbooks made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > >>> t >>> o 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. > Yes, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. > 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. > Bruno, as long as you are unable to fix your blunder in step 3 of the Universal Dovetailer Argument, there is no hope we progress in the discussion. 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.
