On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> 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.
There is only one fundamental difference between your example and
mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but
dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure
something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the integer
that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't
exist.
Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference
rules. If you disagree that prime numbers exists, then OK. I mean I
understand you have some problem with the computationalist assumption,
and why you conceive only "physical computationalism".
You have the metaphysical belief in some reality, and use it to build
a counter-exemple. This is like a creationist who would refute the
theory of evolution because it contradicts the bible. Of course,
nobody can argue with that.
>> 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?
No. That was wasn't a typo, I meant what I said, without
matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a
notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything.
Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still
computations which emulates your mind states. Of course, you can say
they are zombie, because you want your god Matter to be present, but
then a religious charlatan could also add that such a Matter will only
work if his/her God gives the permission.
Actually, if that primary matter gives a role, define it more
precisely and explain its role.
> Yes, books does not compute.
I know, so stop claiming textbooks on computer science prove that
numbers all by themselves without the help of physics can compute
something.
Why? Those things are not related. Computer science books does not
compute, but still provides proof that numbers together with addition
and multiplication do compute.
> Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in
physics, wherever..), can be said to compute.
I have no idea what "universal numbers implemented in
arithmetic" means, but I do know if physics isn't involved nothing
is computed.
Sure. Are you sure that is enough? Maybe Matter need to be blessed or
something.
> with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist
primitively, they arise as common pattern in the mind of non
physical computer.
Maybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak, a language
known only to you.
Not at all, see all my posts or my paper for the definition. It is the
most weak form of computationalism in the literature. All its
consequences are valid for all more precise definitions.
And maybe "God" means an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless
blob in that language, but that's not what the what those
words mean to me or to the English language.
God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the
appearances.
In math we always extend the meaning of the terms. You would have
ridicule the mathematicians when they accepted that 2, 1 and 0 are
numbers, which meant "numerous" at the start.
Playing vocabulary games does not help.
>>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.
Sure, and I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that
they have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist
before.
That has been refuted.
> See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in
that theory,
Oh no, where back with that stupid textbook that is supposed to
be able to make calculations!
You deform to much what I say, and answer things I never said. Sorry,
but that is called trolling.
Bruno
>> 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.
No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more
than 3 physical things in existence, in fact there are even
more than 6.
> The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the
presence of humans or aliens to get this.
In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical
things in the cosmos, there are even more than 6.
>> 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.
If I remember correctly Bertrand Russell started with the
axiom "one is zero" and was able to logically deduce "I am the
Pope" ; but if there was not even one thing in the universe then
there would be no "I" no "Pope" and no "am", so it would make no
difference to anything if I am the Pope or not.
>> 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.
And in mathematics every correct equation is a tautology.
> I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a
primary physical reality.
Interesting question. You can ask something involving matter that
obeys the laws of physics, something like me, interesting questions,
but you can't ask the number 6 anything.
> Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction.
Both are almost identical and neither can be derived from
deduction and so must be assumed as axioms. The only difference is
mathematical induction claims that under conditions X things
*always* continue but when used in the physical world inductive
inference claims that under condition X things *usually* continue.
As far as intelligent behavior is concerned nothing is more
fundamental than induction.
> But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the
observer interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also
in mathematical induction,
I have no idea what that means.
> like Peano Arithmetic.
Peano arithmetic has induction as an axiom but Robinson
arithmetic doesn't, so Robinson is weaker and even further from
the real physical world than Peano.
> It is not a question of language anyway.
Of course it's a question of language!! "God" is a word, a word
that you love more than its meaning. If "God" means "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." then God does not exist.
If "God" means "an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob"
then it makes absolutely no difference if God exists or not. The
thing that makes the God theory different from every other theory of
the world is that intentional is at the very heart of it, if you
take that away all that remains is a word that means mindless
mush.
> 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.
A more general definition is not always or even usually better.
"Stuff" is more general than "number" and "number" is more general
than "prime number". "Fuzzy blob" is pretty general, and pretty
useless.
> Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics
> Why?
There is only one reason I can think of, physics must have
something mathematics does't.
> Well, that is possible, but then you will not survive with an
artificial brain. That's the point.
I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion. Not a
clue.
>> 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,
You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When
it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.
> but science does not work that way.
True, but language does work that way. What's the point of knowing
a language spoken only by you? It doesn't matter to Science or
to logic what the meaning of a word is, all they ask is that the
meaning be consistent. It's not up to science to give meanings to
words, it's up to people.
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.
