On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> 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 > > > > > *That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not.* > If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe works then it can't be fundamental. > > > *The metaphysical/theological question is the question of reductibility of > physics to another science.* > Metaphysics is not a science, and theology is crap. > > *>It seems that you assume Aristotle’s metaphysics [ blah blah blah]* > To hell with the damn idiot ancient Greeks!! > *> Like Aristotle, you confuse [blah blah blah]* > Aristotle like all the ancient Greeks was confused about a great many things, like where the sun went at night, and yet bizarrely you believe they can give us insight into solving modern problems in science. It's utterly ridiculous! > ** > *All what I see, when I observe physicians and their discourses are people > inferring from a finite number of personal but sharable experiences * > And you wouldn't be observing anything without something physical like light. > > > But I see only the numbers > If you can see pure number show me one, I've always wanted to know where the number eleven is located. >* * > *Aristotle’s answer was [blah blah blah]* > I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT ARISTOTLE'S ANSWER WAS!! > ** > *Plato, and the “mystics”, were those who were skeptical about [BLAH > BLAH]* > I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT PLATO WAS SKEPTICAL ABOUT!! > > It does not really matter if you use number, or Turing machine (finite set > of quadruplets), or lambda expressions. Anything that you can define > inductively with some laws making the system Turing universal will do. > If atoms that obey physical laws are organized in certain ways they are Turing Complete and thus capable of calculating anything that can be calculated, but you need something to organize and that's why atoms are needed. And Bruno, that is not an assumption that is an observation, nobody has ever seed a calculation done by anything except by matter. > > *Now, Robinson Arithmetic can count, because* > * *[blah blah blah] > If you know how to get Robinson Arithmetic to count don't tell me about it, tell a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley and become richer than Mark Zuckerberg. > *> You are even the only authentic practicer of indexical > computationalism in this list (that I know of). Perhaps Hal Finney?* > I still don't know what "indexical computationalism" is except that its yet another of your made up buzz words, when I Google it all I get is some of your very recent posts to this very list; but I must say being compared to Hal Finney I consider to be a very high complement. > > > I guess that what stuck you in the 3d step is only your big ego, > So you think the problem is my big ego, hmm, well there are 2 possibilities: 1) I know you made a enormous breakthrough but I refuse to publicly say so because I don't want to admit anyone is smarter than me. 2) I don't understand how anybody with half a brain could think saying "THE first person" would uniquely specify one and only one thing if "THE first person" duplicating machines are available. I'll let others decide which of the two is true.. > > > you keep confusing physics and metaphysics, like Aristotle, > Aristotle didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and neither did Plato. Why do you keep talking about these ignoramuses?! 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.