On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> A definition will tell you absolutely positively 100% NOTHING about the >> underlying nature of mathematics or physics, it will just tell you things >> about human mathematical notation and language. You learn about nature >> from examples not from definitions, even the writers of dictionaries know >> that. > > > > > > You are just delirious or what? > I'm not delirious so I must be what. > > I just meant that if you consult the literature, > The literature is physical. > > > the notion of partial computable function, or Turing computable function, > or Church lambda calculus, and the relative computations, etc. does not > involve any physical assumption. > And that is precisely why despite their misleading names partial computable function s or Turing computable function s or Church lambda calculus can't actually compute or calculate one damn thing. > >> >> >> Don't tell me show me, don't give me another definition give me an >> example, calculate 2+2 without using anything physical, >> or if that's too hard try 1+1. Do that and >> I'll concede the argument >> , >> and immediately after that I'll get on the phone to Silicon Valley. >> > > > > Silicon valley exists thanks to those mathematicians having discovered the > universal numbers. > That is true, Silicon V alley wouldn't exist without mathematicians like Turing, but Silicon Valley wouldn't exist without Silicon either. > > > The numbers, as studied today, by mathematicians, does not use physical > assumption. > Mathematicians are free to make or not to make any assumption they like, but it won't change the fact that mathematicians are physical. >> >> if pure mathematics is the most fundamental science and contains profound >> truths independent of the physical world why does the mathematician need >> physics to give his equations meaning? > > > > > In the big picture, it does not. > Perhaps your "big picture" is just a bit too big. If the fundamental meaning of the word "nothing" is infinite unbounded homogeneity in every dimension, and I can't think of a better one that conforms with our normal use of the word, then your "big picture" is nothing. > > > If you were not stuck in step 3 > [...] > John Clark is not stuck at step 3, Bruno Marchal is. Bruno Marchal assumes the very thing Bruno Marchal is trying to prove, Bruno assumes that because when looking into the past there is always a unique meaning to the word "you" there will be a unique meaning to that personal pronoun when looking into the future too ; but if the multiverse exists and Everett is right then there is no way that assumption can be correct. 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.
