On 31 May 2016, at 23:29, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:38 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):
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.
But the' existence of papers is not part of the hypothesis for
developing the theory. You are confusing levels.
> (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.
Perhaps. The point is that IF electron are made of primary matter,
then computationalism is false. But "primary matter" is a notion in
theology, never used in physics, and to invoke it to refute an
argument is the same as saying that the theory of evolution is false
because it failed to explain how God created the humans. We call that
"begging the question".
>>> 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.
Why then to invoke it? If you agree that there is no Aristotelian
matter, I have no need to argue more. Then the question is: where does
the appearance of aristotelian matter comes from. You need it to
defend physicalism.
> 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?
That does not exist. What we can explain, is why the average universal
(and immaterial) machine, which exists in arithmetic, develop stable
beliefs in tha appearance of physical matter, wand why such matter
obeys the physical laws.
>> 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,
Proof?
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.
How can you observe that computations do not exist in arithmetic.
Something which is refuted in all textbook, also.
>> 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.
> 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.
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.
But your attempts to show a blunder was a confusion between first
person and third person view. Your attempt to fix that blunder was
either confusion of levels, or nonsensical things that nobody can
explain.
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.
