> On 11 Apr 2018, at 18:30, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be 
> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> >> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe 
> >> works then it can't be fundamental.
> > ?I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply 
> > incomplete, not advance enough
> If its not advanced enough then it can't be fundamental. It could be that 
> nothing is fundamental, nobody knows.

You are confusing (sorry!) what is a fundamental theory in some domain, and the 
notion of complete theory (which cannot exist for any Turing-complete). Any 
theory which can prove all true sigma_1 sentence, like already Robinson 
Arithmetic, is not just incomplete, but incompleteable. It does not admit any 
Recursively enumerable complete extensions.

Interestingly enough, RA is the smallest, finitely axiomatisable, Turing 
complete theory of arithmetic. If you subtract any axioms of classical 
predicate logic +

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)

You get an incomplete theory, non Turing-complete, which can be completed on 
some domain. The proof is in the Dover book by Tarsi, Mostowski, Robinson.
Yet there are weaker theories than this, but they need a scheme of axioms 
(infinitely many axioms).

But “fundamental” means that it assumes the less to explain the more, and 
perhaps everything (matter, consciousness, gods, etc.).

The follower of Aristotle thought that physics is the fundamental theory: that 
the unknown laws of physics could explain matter, and the conscious appearance.

Plato was skeptical, and open to the idea that the fundamental theory might 
bear on something else, like Pythagorus’s number, mathematics, or music, etc.

> > when you will understand the famous step 3, it can be shown that [...] 
> With famous step 3 it can be shown that Bruno Marchal hasn't spent 2 seconds 
> thinking about what personal pronouns mean

In the original thesis, the Universal Dovetailer Argument was presented as a 
paradox, and it was used only to motivate the platonic epistemological nuances 
between many first person and third person pronouns. You can skip the whole 
argument/paradox, and study only the mathematical theory, extracted from what 
any universal machine discover when looking inward (in the Gödel sense). The 
3p-self ([]p) general definition problem is entirely solved by Kleene second 
recursion theorem. The 1p-self is entirely solves, thanks to incompleteness by 
the Theaetetus definition ([]p & p). Incompleteness  identifies 8 “pronouns”, 
with transparent arithmetical definitions (but the one with “& p” have no first 
order arithmetical definition, but they have clear second-order logical, or 
analytical one.

> and believes we can keep using them exactly as they always have been used 
> even after personal pronoun duplicating machines have been invented.

On the contrary, the thought experience refutes exactly this, and explains how 
to use them, but without necessitating the math, and you are the only one 
having a problem with this. Even my opponents got the points, as they have said 
also behind my back in private.

> > Plato is skeptical of observation.
> And that is why Plato made so many stupid conclusions and that is the only 
> reason the scientific revolution started around 1600AD and not around 400BC.
> > assuming Aristotle’s metaphysical axiom.
> And Aristotle was also a fool. Bruno, just once write a post without 
> mentioning one of those know-nothing jackasses.

We cannot change of paradigm if we don’t understand the origin of our paradigm. 
You keep criticising Aristotle and Plato without understanding that today, in 
theology (atheists or christian) still use Aristotle theology. All your 
“refutation” that consciousness appears in arithmetic were based on the use of 
Aristotle ideas.

> >> nobody has ever seed a calculation done by anything except by matter.  
> > False.
> Stop telling me that and SHOW ME!  Or better yet show somebody in Silicon 
> Valley and become the richest man who ever lived. 

They have become rich because they have already understood this. We would never 
have had the idea of implementing,ng a universal machine with the physical laws 
if Turing and Church did not discovered the notion in mathematics before. 
(Leaving Babbage serendipitous discovery of it one century before).

> > you are ok with the fact that (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is true or false
> I am OK with that because I made the calculation and I made it with my 
> physical brain that is made of physical atoms that obey the laws of physics. 
> > independently of you verifying this or not, then all computations are 
> > executed in arithmetic independently of you
> What computation? 2+2=4 is either true or it is not but that is not a 
> computation,

Yes, but like a prime number, a computation is a number, when we work in the 
arithmetical Turing-universal base. It is about those computations that I am 
talking, not about 2+2=4.

But your answers show that the day you will understand what a computation is, 
you get the point.

> a computation is a way to examine a statement more closely and enables you to 
> figure out if the statement should be put in the true or false category. 

I use the term computation in his precise mathematical sense of Turing or 
Church. There has been many equivalent definitions, but with Church Thesis they 
are equivalent.

> We're talking about figuring out stuff not in the intrinsic correctness or 
> incorrectness of something, and nobody, absolutely nobody, has ever seen 
> anything figure out anything without matter that obeys the laws of physics.

Nobody has ever seen primary matter, and here you assume Aristotle metaphysics, 
like I said above. You assume the physical primariness, which is just not 
compatible with mechanism, or you have to tell me what in matter is needed in 
consciousness and that all universal Turing machines lack. 

> And that is not a assumption, metaphysical or otherwise, that is an 
> observation.
The idea that observation ==> reality (contradicted by the existence of dreams) 
IS Aristotle metaphysical axiom.


> Yes I know your buddies the ancient Greeks didn't like observation but that 
> is why they were such fools and that is why science remained stagnate for 
> 2,000 years.
> > It has been useful for the progress of physics, but it has put the 
> > mind-body problem under the rug for long.
> Then lets get it from under the rug. Mind is what a particular part of the 
> body, the brain, does.  
> > There would be no computer if the mathematician (Turing) did not discovered 
> > them in mathematics,
> And there would be no Turing the mathematician without matter that obeys the 
> laws of physics.  
> >> I still don’t know what what “indexical computationalism” is 
> > You still don’t know?
> Nope I still don't know, and I'm not the only one, the only thing Google 
> knows about it are from posts from you to this very list made in the last 
> month or so. It’s more of your silly homemade baby-talk used to cover up 
> fuzzy thinking. 
> > That is explained in many posts,
> And I refuse to study your posts just so I can learn your own personal slang 
> words! Crackpots always make up lots and lots of new words and phrases 
> because if they stated them using standard scientific language the fuzzy 
> nature of the logic behind them would become all too apparent.
> > Indexical mechanism is the theological assumption that we can remain alive 
> > and conscious when getting a digital brain digital transplant.
> Theological? How can you get from the existence of matter to the existence of 
> an omnipotent omniscient conscious being? Since I believe in the existence of 
> matter and you don't I guess that means you're a atheist but I am not. I 
> guess that also means words mean whatever Bruno Marchal wants them to mean.  
> >>  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.
> > But we have explain you why this is not what the duplicated people can 
> > feel, unless you add some telepathic connection between the duplicated 
> > people,
> You have never explained anything of the sort unless its in that wonderful 
> post that you’ve been talking about for years that nobody can find. And a 
> telepathic connection has as much to do with all this as the existence of 
> matter has to do with a omnipotent omniscient conscious being . Exactly 
> precisely nothing.
> > Plato and Aristotle provided the two basic different way to conceive Reality
> And both of their views were WRONG and both of them rejected the way to 
> correct errors, observation and experiment. Unfortunately many like you took 
> their advise and as a result we got 2,000 years of intellectual stagnation. 
> These people quite literally didn't know where the sun went at night and 
> we're still suposed to take their ideas seriously today?? 
>  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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.

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