On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an >> explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it >> will say something like "take this number and place it in that set" but >> how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter >> that obeys the laws of physics? > > > By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number, for > example by using Gödel's numbering > What!? that's just passing the buck! How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics is not involved somewhere along the line ? > > > I can give more detailed, but you can consult a textbook. > More details are not needed, nor is changing the word "pick" for "use" needed, what is needed is clear thinking. >> >> And I still don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set that >> contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones when you must >> know there is no way to construct such a set even in theory. > > > > > That set cannot be defined in arithmetic, but admit a simple definition in > set theory or in analysis. > ** *A definition is NOT a construction! *It's extraordinarily easy to define a Faster Than Light Spaceship, it's right there in the very name of the thing, it's a spaceship that can move faster than light, but that doesn't mean anybody can construct such a thing . The very laws of mathematics you keep talking about tell us there is NO WAY even in theory to construct a set that has all true mathematical statements and no false ones ; forget practicalities you can't do it even in theory, not even if you had a infinite amount of time to work on it. So using such a set to tell us something about reality is not permissible under the rules of logic. > > > The whole chapter of mathematical logic known as recursion theory studies > and classifies the degree of unsolvability of such set. > *A classification is NOT a construction anymore than a definition is!* The Faster Than Light Spaceship is in the "vehicle" class and in the "spaceship" class but unfortunately it is also in the "fictional" class because nobody can construct one. By mocking the possibility of doing theology in the scientific way, the > gnostic-atheists (believers in a Primary Physical Reality > Does " Primary Physical Reality " mean a belief that matter is all there is? If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do adjectives, aka information. > > and believer in the zero personal gods theory) > > maintain the field in the hands of the clericals How long do you suppose the Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob . " ? I would estimate about .9 seconds. A personal God who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him enough is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are interested in. That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up. If He's not personal then God is about as useful to them as a screen door on a submarine . 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.
