On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of >> physics >> >> is not involved somewhere along the line ? > > > > > because with the standard definition of computation, they exist > A definition can't make something exist! > > > and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic. > And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books, but none of them can burn my finger . And without matter that obeys the laws of physics Robinson Arithmetic can't balance my checkbook, or do anything else either. > > > The definition of computation does not involve matter > You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call "computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it. > > You do the same mistake than the people who say that a (physical) > simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual answer to this is > that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make a "you" feeling being > wet in a relative way. > I agree but there is a difference. I could ask the simulated person if the simulated typhoon makes him feel wet, but I don't know how to ask 3 if Robinson Arithmetic makes it feel like it's half of 6. > > No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following situations: > A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp > universal program simulating that universal Turing machine, > and > Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson > arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal > Turing machine. > That is incorrect, It's extraordinarily easy to distinguish between the two, one will produce an output and one will not. If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set. > > > Is this OK for everybody? > No I don't believe we are. *>> **A definition is NOT a construction!* > > > > > Yes, that is exactly the point. > > We can define the set of arithmetical true statements, and so we can > *talk* about it, without being able to construct it, or to generate it > mechanically. > Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called "fiction". > >> >> >> Does "Primary Physical Reality >> " mean a belief that matter is all there is? >> > > > > No. It means that a Physical Reality which has to be assumed. > You don't need to assume that bowling ball falling toward your head will hurt when it hits, unlike pure mathematics physics will continue to do its thing regardless of what you assume define or classify. If you don't believe me just wait a fraction of a second. > > > It means a Physical reality which would not been able to be explained > without assuming that matter. > Nothing can be explained without matter and the laws of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the understanding. > >> >> 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 >> . >> > > > > Who care? > 1.2 Billion Catholics care and the y care very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something* RADICALLY* different from what you mean when you use the same word , and that makes communication almost impossible , and yet you insist on using that same damn word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled. > > You illustrate again that you want to keep the pope and the > pseudo-religious believers happy. > > You illustrate again that Gnostic Atheism is a form of catholicism. > I'm sure glad I found my trusty old rubber stamp. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. 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.
