On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
*> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that > physics describe the fundamental theory. * We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or why there is so much more matter than antimatter or tell us whats going on at the singularity of a Black Hole. Our Physics is the most fundamental theory we know of but we don’t know if *THE* Fundamental Theory even exists, it might be like the layers of a onion or an infinite Matryoshka doll and then will always be a more fundamental theory to find. > That is just a metaphysical assumption which has been recently debunked. I'm tired of you saying that, stop tell me and show me! But don’t show me a textbook made of physical atoms and don’t send me a pulse of physical electrons than my physical computer interprets as pixels on a physical screen, show me a pure number and let me watch it while that pure number performs a calculation, 2+2 would be good enough. Just do that and I will concede the argument. > >> In that sense, numbers can count given that all partial computable >> functions are representable in Robinson Arithmetic > > * > Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers.* So what, all computable functions are also representable on a blank sheet of paper if a pencil is available. But paper can't count and Robinson Arithmetic can’t count and a textbook on Robinson Arithmetic can count no better than a rock can because the atoms in the textbook and the rock and the blank paper are not arranged in a way that allows them to do so. However if the same atoms that were in the Robinson textbook or the rock were arranged differently, as for example in the form of a computer, then those same atoms could count. Finding the proper way to arrange those atoms took thousands of years to figure out (the ancient Greeks who you’re always babbling about were completely clueless on how to do it) but we eventually got the hang of it. >> they are not arranged that way in a rock. > > *> I agree with this. A rock cannot be said to think, because a rock does > not implement a universal numbers.* "Universal number” is yet another of your homemade slang terms. Perhaps you’re saying the same thing I am just more opaquely, I say a rock or a Robinson Arithmetic textbook cannot count or think because they don't implement the atomic arrangement information that would allow them to do so. *> Or you mean that you have some magical soul which can count, * I mean that generic atoms that obey the known laws of information can count if they are arranged in the correct way, a way that can only be characterized by information *> but then you are out of the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis. * That's OK, I never knew I was even in " the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis ". 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.