On 26 Jan 2017, at 21:12, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of
physics is able to perform calculations, I need only observe that
is can.
> No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal.
True I can't observe that because I don't know what "pieces of
matter are Universal" means and I doubt you do either, but I know
what pieces of matter performing calculations means and I can
observe that.
No, you can't. You can extrapolate from observation that some piece of
matter are Turing Universal, but you cannot observe primitive
('course, given the subject we discuss) matter, still less a complex
relation disposition like being Universal.
> In all case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is
enough for that task.
What in the world is "grandmother physics"?
The physics from grandmother. Like "object falls, water makes wet". It
is an expression for mundane or high level intuitive physics.
>> you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the
same thing without the help of physics.
> This is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when
I explain this in all details in a self-contained way.
And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with
no clear referent;
Where?
I told you that the self, the soul and the observer are well defined
using Kleene's theorem. Computer science has solved all those
indexical problems. You do just negative propaganda, without citing
evidences. Your critics hare has already been refuted many times. Try
to find something else.
and this is supposed to be a work that proves something about
personal identity.
Not at all. You criticize something which seems to exist in your
imagination only.
> all you need to understand is the original definition of
computable function,
I don't give a damn about your definitions or computable
functions.
This ends the conversation.
Bruno
Enough talk lets see some action, I want you to do something, I want
you to make a calculation without using matter that obeys the laws
of physics. Ask one of your infinite universal numbers to find out
what the 11th prime number larger than 10^100^100 is and tell us
what it says in your next post. Do that and you've won the argument,
but no fair cheating by using one of INTEL's products or anything
else made of matter.
> as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do
not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal
numbers do that,
Stop telling me that and SHOW ME! You claim to know all about
these "universal numbers" of yours so use them to make some
calculations and put INTEL out of business.
> I have no clue if you are just joking
I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no
need for a company like INTEL.
Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists,
It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is
invisible in most theologies, OK.
Don't you find that rather convenient? You'd think God should
be the most obvious thing there is but instead the one thing
theologians agree in is God is invisible.
> it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth
of all arithmetical sentence,
And what percentage of human beings on this planet believe the word
"God" means "arithmetic? I would estimate about .000001%. I
agree that majority vote can't determine the nature of reality, but
they can and do determine the meanings of words. And there are only
2 reasons somebody would use the English word "God" in such a
grossly non-standard way:
1) They like to make a noise with their mouth that sounds like "I
believe in God".
2)They wish to deceive.
> "amoral"? open problem.
> "Mindless?" Perhaps?
> but no need to take this as more than a simple metaphor.
Just as I thought, to you and only to you the English word "God"
means an invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of
arithmetic. Bruno, do you really thing hanging the name tag "God"
on such an amorphous blob helps communicating in your ideas to other
people without creating massive confusion?
> That is implicit in Platonist like theology,
Plato was a imbecile and theology has no field of study.
> Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One
instead.
The one what?
> And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and
physics came in great part from Plato and Aristotle.
All we hear from you is Plato and Aristotle, but you never
mention the greatest Greek of them all, Archimedes.
> You say theology is stupid,
Theology is stupid and so are theologians.
> but you mock all attempts to be serious with it,
Because there is no "it" there to be serious about. With theology
there is no there there.
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.
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 [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.
