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

*> 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 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.

Reply via email to