On 10 Jan 2017, at 04:12, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>>A definition can't make something exist!
> Wrong.
Are you being serious?
> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That
makes the glodlyrapiculs existing
And I define a glodlyrapicul by a dragon. Did my definition
cause anything to come into existence?
That one no. But that does no make my counter-example invalid. Nobody
said that all definition makes things existing.
> I cannot explain you the number without using our physical
environment, but that does not mean that the notion of number
depends on the existence of that physical environment.
Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the
notion of notion can exist without the physical environment!
I guess you mean the notion of motion?
Are you OK with the notion of block-universe in general relativity. Or
are you a believer/assumer of a primitive time?
We don't need a physical environment, we need only stable dreams of
such environment, and this reduces the problem to the chapter 4 of the
book of Davis, that is the proof that all computations are
implemented, in a "block-like" manner, in a tiny part of the
arithmetical reality.
>>> and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.
>> And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books,
> Now in the sense of computer science, which is relevant here.
Why Not? They seem equally relevant to me. Both books are made of
atoms that obey the laws of physics, and neither of those
arrangements of atoms are organized is a way that enables them to
perform calculations.
Yes, but books does not compute. Only universal numbers, when
implemented (in arithmetic, in physics, wherever..), can be said to
compute.
>> but none of them can burn my finger.
> If you are emulated at the right level in a finger burning
situation, you will feel the pain,
I agree, maybe we're all living in a computer simulation but if
we are it's a *computer* simulation, and computers are made of matter.
Physical computer are made of atoms only. But with computationalism,
Physical computer do not exist primitively, they arise as common
pattern in the mind of non physical computer.
The existence of primitive physicalness is a metaphysical assumption.
It is not part of physics.
>> 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.
> Many people are interested. It is a branch of math, and it
makes us able to show that some problem are not algorithmically
solvable.
Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can
be solved without brains, but it was needed to discover some
problems can't be solved even with brains.
The point is that you conclude that a problem is not solvable by a
computation, we need a mathematical definition of computation. Church
proposed the first, and since them many definition have been given,
and they have been shown to be equivalent. Church's thesis make them
all equivalent, even those not yet invented.
And brain and machine might solve them, but then in a non mechanical
way, with heuristic, and without guaranties.
>> If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical
device you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set.
> How could that be possible? We interrogate the machine *in*
arithmetic.
You interrogate the machine "in" physics because it's made of
physical stuff.
But that is not relevant for the basic theory. You could say that the
notion of group requires the notion of blackboard or paper, but that
would be of course a confusion of level. same here.
All what I say is that if digital mechanism is true, then the
following theory(*) has to be able to explain entirely the illusion of
stable persistent physical laws, and that indeed we get already
quantum logic, reversibility, linearity, the many-worlds aspect of
reality, etc.
(*) the theory is computationalism (the invariance of consciousness
for a recursive permutation, to be short) at the meta-level, +
classical first order logic +
0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1)) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x
See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in that
theory, using no more than the logical symbiols and +, *, 0, s. (and
parentheses). I could explain here, if you want, but of course it
could be a bit long.
> You are telling me that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do
the physical computation,
I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire
universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because
there would be no one to give it a meaning.
But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you
have change your mind since our last conversation.
The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of
humans or aliens to get this. The divisibility of natural numbers has
nothing to do with the existence of more complex number capable of
understanding division. indeed, we use the elementary arithmetical
notions to define the physical objects, and then comp makes the
primary physical object into phlogiston.
Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if
6/3=2 was true or not.
It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say
that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory
inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you
know Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would
changes things.
> even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a
justification in physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist,
Yes it does. It was discovered empirically that three apples and
three apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples
and two apples, and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing
as any.
That would make physics circular.
>> 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".
> Except that star strek is fiction.
It's fiction because faster than light spaceships doesn't
correspond with physical reality.
> Arithmetical truth [...]
But Arithmetic does correspond with physical reality and that's
why it's nonfiction written in the language of mathematics.
But you agree that 10^(10^1000000000) is a multiple of 10, despite
such number are not realizable. You just assert the physicalist dogma,
but I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a primary
physical reality. It is a religious/metaphysical hypothesis. maybe
true, but then digital mechanism is false (by the argument given).
>> Nothing can be explained without matter and the laws
of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and
nothing doing the understanding.
> How do you know?
From Induction,
Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction.
something even more important than deduction and something
Robinson arithmetic doesn't have.
But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the observer
interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also in
mathematical induction, like Peano Arithmetic.
There are countless examples of matter explaining things and
countless examples of matter understanding things, but there are no
examples and no evidence of anything else doing either.
I have searched a use of *primary* matter all my life. I have found
only one: by the catholic to argue that bread is the body of Jesus. In
the physics literature, primary matter is not used.
> then in your theory computationalism is false.
Maybe in Bruno-speak, but you are the only speaker of that
language.
Not at all. My way of talking is quite standard, in may field crossed.
It is not a question of language anyway. If primary matter exists, the
physical appearance cannot be used to assert the existence of primary
matter. That follows from a reasoning, and we know where and how you
stopped, if this needs to be recalled.
Everybody else means something different by words like "God" or "
computationalism". I just typed Computationalism into Google and
this is what I got:
"Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is
causally explained by computations performed by the agent's
cognitive system (or brain)."
The assumption I used implies this one, but is weaker (making the
consequences valid for the definition above).
That definition works for me.
I also asked Google to define "God":
"The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral
authority; the supreme being. A superhuman being or spirit
worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes."
And that definition works for me too.
Same remarks. You will find many other definition, and I use the one
by the neoplatonists, whioch is the most general. But I avoid the term
god, unless I reply to a post with that term.
> No theories in math assumes anything in physics.
Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics
Why? It that a dogma? Well, that is possible, but then you will not
survive with an artificial brain. That's the point.
and physics can't do so either, but they don't need to because they
can observe them.
> Who care?
1.2 Billion Catholics care and they 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.
> Right answer, the catholics care. So you are catholic? or
you care, for some reason to what the catholic thinks.
Of course I care what Catholics think, they outnumber me 1.2
billion to one and they have been using the word "God" in a certain
way for 2000 years so I'd say they have ownership of it, and it
would be foolish and cause endless confusion if I started calling
something completely unrelated, like my can opener, "God". The
Catholic God, Bruno's God, and my can opener, are all equally
distant from each other in concept space, so they should't have the
same name!
You confess base your thinking on what the majority says, but science
does not work that way. It is not a democracy, and we should accept
only what we prove, or assume.
Bruno
> the modern catholic have no problem writing paper on the god
of Plato,
To hell with modern Catholics to hell with God to hell with
Plato to hell with Aristotle and above all to hell with all the
idiot ancient Greeks that were so ignorant they didn't even know
where the sun went at night.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
