On 08 Jun 2016, at 20:43, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> "I" is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> If that were true, you would die when we throw out your
actual matter and give you a digital body,
No it would not because a electronic computer is made of matter
that obeys the laws of physics just as a human body is.
The question is about primary matter, not matter.
However if what you say is true then ingesting a form of matter that
obeys the laws of physics like cyanide, strychnine, or cobra venom
will have no effect on your consciousness, but I have a hunch it
will. So I don't recommend you do it.
You might actually need to read what I say.
>> Matter that obeys the laws of physics is required not only
to make calculations but also to make proofs.
> You confuse the number 2 with the number of ears of the
average rabbit.
Which came first, 2 or ears? I say ears because if there were
only one thing in the physical universe mathematicians would have
never invented 2, much less computed 2+2.
Unless they live in the arithmetical reality. You have added an axiom
saying that some PRIMARY MATTER select some computations making them
real, so that those computation in arithmetic can only support
zombies. Frankly this type of move reminds me the Spanish who argued
that the Indians have no souls, just to fit their theory.
Here you just keep asserting that things are made of primary matter,
but I have proven that such a theory does not make sense even with
just a very weak form of Occam Razor once we assume (consciously
enough, or Löbian) Digital Mechanism.
You just believe in a pseudo-God
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
Probably because you are not yet aware that your belief in PRIMARY
matter and your belief in physicalism are religious. I am aware that
when the prejudice are so common, it takes some effort to realize
that. But your "argument" against the step 3 seems to illustrate that
you are not interested in the search of a fundamental theory. You have
decided it is physics, and that nothing could make you change your
mind. In fact, you are not interested in the mind-body problem, even
when restricted to mechanism.
Just a passive knowledge of the first chapters of Martin Davis Dover
book "Computability and Unsolvability" should help you for no more
using an answer that you have repeated about an hundred times. Like
above "mathematicians are made of matter, thus arithmetic assumes
matte"r. Understanding passivley what Davis means by Turing Machine
should solve that problem.
Yet the "real thing in computer science" that I have exploited is in
his chapter four, where he arithmetizes the theory of Turing machine
to study what they can prove about themselves. There is no physical
assumptions in the theory of computability. The fact that he wrote all
this in a physical book has nothing to do with the fact that
computations are arithmetical objects.
To invent a material brain to select a computation (arithmetical
object) among all computations, is a sort of arithmetical equivalent
of introducing a collapse, or like introducing particles having at the
start the non computable initial positions making them selecting a
particular worlds among all worlds (Bohm).
With mechanism, thanks mainly to Church thesis, we get a simple notion
of things: the computations, definable in the arithmetical logic
(first order classical logic + "s", "0", "+" and "*".) and a precise
notion of universality, semi-effective and close for Cantor
transcendental diagonalization: price to pay unending developping web
of dreams, from which the stable appeareances have to be explained in
a sort of Gleason-Everett way. And then this works up to the
propositional modal levels, thanks to incompleteness which provides
non trivial sense for each of the nuances already seen by Chinese,
Indians, and antic greeks (Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades,
Plotinus, Proclus, ...). That research has been stopped by violence
when the science has been mis-used as a political instrument, and it
is sad the non agnostic type of atheists continue to help the clerics
to keep the leading position in the domain by preventing and delaying
the coming back of theology at the academy.
You might not be a fundamentalist christian, but you are still its
best ally.
You are ally to the fundamentalist christians by defending their
conception of God (instead of, for example, coming back to the greek
definition (where god = whatever is true and one above us)) and by
defending their conception of matter (mainly primary ontological
object (Aristotle)).
The theology of arithmetic is very different than the Aristotelian
theology. In the aristotelian theology there is a creator and there is
a creation. In the theology of arithmetic there is a universal dreamer
which lost itself innumerably, and sometimes wake up or get lucid
before falling asleep again. I let you personify the notion of
arithmetical truth itself (which does not need to be invoked though)
if you want a sort of Goddess or One, or Glass-of-Milk, from which the
dreamers and dream emanate. Note that its is an object easily
definable in second order logic (which basically assumes it), analysis
(arithmetical truth, and the notion of arithmetical, are NOT definable
in the language of arithmetic). If we can defined it in analysis, it
remains of course a highly non computable object.
And the point is no that this theory (of mind/matter) is true, only
that this is testable, and somehow tested as it (retro)-predicted, and
thus explains, most starling aspects of the physical reality, notably
its quantumness. Thanks to Gödel, Löb, Solovay, we get the nuances
needed to distinguish the quantum from the quale, also, and all this
just using definition arguably already given by the neopythagoreans
and the neoplatonists.
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.
