On 05 Jun 2016, at 01:57, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Peano Arithmetic (RA + the induction axioms) proves that all
computations exist.
Proving an answer exists is not the same as proving you have the
answer, or even proving that in theory an answer can be found. If
it were otherwise Giuseppe Peano would have been Silicon
Valley's first billionaire.
Well Peano did not discover the universal machine, but others have
done that. Only the more engineering inclined people have become
millionaires from that discovery, as they manage to provide physical
implementations. But the discovery and the constructive proofs whre
given by the mathematicians, and this in theories without any physical
assumption.
> You have to endow the universal Turing machine or number with
magical abilities for them to avoid arithmetical zombiness.
Yes, if that were not so, and assuming Darwin was right (he
was), then no conscious being would exist in the
universe,
I don't see that.
and yet I know for a fact that at least one does. You're
probably conscious too and for the same reason. I have a explanation
of how and why Evolution produced intelligent behavior but I
have no explanation why intelligent behavior produces
consciousness except to say consciousness is the way data feels
like when it is being processed, and if it's a brute fact
that's all that can be said and all that needs to be said about
it.
You give matter magical attributes to avoid the mathematical fact that
computations are executed in (all) models of Arithmetic. The sigma_1
truth is the same in all model, so to get physics we can confine
ourself in the so called standard model, which plays the role of
neoplatonist or neopythagorean "Glass-of-Milk".
> When you say "All the theories and all the hypotheses that
have ever existed were developed by brains made of matter that obey
the laws of physics, and the way they were communicated to other
brains also involved matter that obey the laws of physics. There are
no exceptions. None. ", that is exactly what we mean by
"Aristotelian Matter".
Who is "we"? I want nothing to do with Aristotle, he was a
nitwit.
Without him and Plato, science would not have begun. Being wrong is
not a problem in science. My feeling is that you have not read
Aristotle, nor Plato, and you take Aristotelian theology for granted.
If not, you would not been criticizing many things without studying
them, as you confessed more than once.
>> Do you really doubt that electrons are made of
matter that obeys the laws of physics ?!
> My opinion is private and of no interest.
Jez, I'm not asking about your sex life I'm asking a legitimate
question about the physics of electrons. Are you ashamed at what
your answer would be?
I prefer not say my personal opinions, because in this difficult hot
field, people would confuse them with the results.
>> you can't observe, even in theory,
computations that exist in arithmetic but not in physics;
and that is just another way of saying that such computations don't
exist.
> Then prime numbers do not exist,
The very first program my brain, which is made of matter
We don't know that. We know it is a good first approximation, but
there is just no matter usable once we bet on (Digital) Mechanism.
Well, we know where you are stuck in the proof.
that obeys the laws of physics, ever wrote instructed a computer,
which is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, to print a
list of prime numbers on a paper, which is made of matter that
obeys the laws of physics.
> You might not understand well what is a theory, or what are
theoretical assumptions.
Then show me a computation that doesn't use matter that obeys the
laws of physics and I'll understand it better.
Read the original paper by Church or Post. Avoid Turing because he
uses material and human metaphor to help the intuition, but can be
misleading on this metaphysical question of primacy or not of physics.
But even Turing insists that his discovery is mathematical, not
physical. See Matiyazevich book for an explanation of why using Turing
formalism, and why it is necessary to understand the non physical
classical Church thesis to deduce the non solvability of Hilbert tenth
problem (in math).
And I'll contact INTEL about it too.
A comment which suggests that you still want to miss the point. Intel
use physical assumption to implement physically the computers. But
that has nothing to do with the fact that the physical has to arise
from the only arithmetical if digital mechanism is true.
> Computationalism explains the appearance of blackboards, and
of textbooks, without assuming the existence of blackboard and
textbooks
How would things be different if blackboards and
textbooks DID exist? What does "exist" even mean in your
context?
Ontological: arithmetic existence, like in prime numbers exists, or
computations exist. It is handled by the first order predicate logic
"E".
Physical existence is recovered from the logic of dreams by relatively
self-referential numbers statistics, it is handled by the quantified
modal logic of knowledge and observation (and sensations): []Ex[]P(x)
or []<>Ex[]<>P(x), with []p defined in the logic G or G* (like I
showed many times, see preceding posts or my papers).
> The physical has a mathematical reason.
If so I have great trouble understanding why changing the physical
brain of a mathematician changes not only his mathematical
reasoning but also his consciousness.
This is weird, as this is the type of things explained the best by
Mechanism.
I think there is more evidence the mathematical has a physical reason.
In case we assume matter exists and has magical (non Turing emulable,
nor FPI recoverable) attribute. That follows from the Universal
Dovetailer reasoning, but we know that you are stuck at step 3, and
have not even read the sequel (which could help you though).
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.
