> On 18 Apr 2018, at 19:30, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> Ad hominem my ass! Bruno > > > Try to be polite please. > > Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases like "Ad hominem" and even more > important try sending only ASCII sequential characters to this list that > convey a meaning. > > > > You participate, with the many pseudo-religious interest, > > Well, I'm interested in not dying just like religious people are I'll give > you that, so that's why I signed up with Alcor. I already gave my reasons for > saying information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of > the soul and still remain within the scientific method and you have never > given me a reason to think otherwise. > > > theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks, > > TO HELL WITH WHAT IT MEANS TO THE IDIOT GREEKS! Nobody on this list is a > idiot Greek because the last one died over 2 thousand years ago, its time to > move o > > > > I use “theology” to help people to see [....] > > Bullshit, you don't use that word to help people see anything, you use > "theology" as an insult because you know atheist don't like it, and you use > new homemade acronyms and bizarre meanings for common words and change those > meanings from post to post because the clear use of language in describing > your ideas would make it obvious to all that they make no sense. > > > > Logicians have no problems with my work at all. Only biggot atheist, but > I don’t know any logicians as such. > > If you don't know any fellow logicians how do you know they have no problem > with your work? > > > Please, take some time to study pre-christian theology. > > NO! Not a snowball's chance in hell! It's just bizarre, with beautiful new > discoveries being made in science nearly every day your advice to somebody > who wants to understand how the world works is to read some dusty old book on > pre-christian theology. > > > Some christians and some atheists have written excellent introduction to > Plotinus and Proclus. > > I don't give a tinkers dam about Plotinus and Proclus, and with all the > fascinating things beings discovered right now why are you wasting your > valuable brain cells on relics of a far more ignorant age? > > > Read Wallis’ book on Neoplatonism. > > Why? So I can count the number of times the Neoplatonists made fools of > themselves? > > >> In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all, > > > I am talking about mathematics and computer science. They do redefine all > terms, in any long papers. > > > BULLSHIT! I've subscribed to scientific journals for decades and I've never > once read an article that starts out by redefining a common word to mean > something entirely different from its well known meaning, and the only > reason somebody would do such a thing would be as a smoke screen to cover up > fuzzy thinking. No respectable scientist would do such a thing and neither > would a logician who had intellectual integrity. > > >> So physics can do something that mathematics can’t. > > > Like a program computing taxes can do immediately what no unprogrammed > universal machine could do. So, yes, but not as an argument in favour of > materialism. > > I have no idea what your talking about, none at all. > > > You need to study the proof, here it your blindness in step 3 > > To hell with your idiotic childish amateurish step 3. I'm never going to > read another word of that damn thing until you fix the blunders in the parts > I have read.
I suppose there will be soon or later some opportunity that I explain “step 3” to Lawrence or Grayson. We will see if they will find your alleged “blunders”, and if not, if you can convince them about. Bruno > > > See above. > > NO! > > > Why should a textbook be able to compute? > You tell me, every time I say calculating 2+2 would be impossible without > matter that obeys the laws of physics for some strange reason you start > talking about a textbook that tells a story written in the language of > mathematics. It would be as if I claimed brooms could fly and as proof I > showed you a Harry Potter story written in the language of English. Making up > something that can do incredible things is one thing but actually doing it in > the real physical world is far far harder because physics is more fundamental > than mathematics > > > But a number or a digital machine (an immaterial notion) can > > That would be BIG news to everybody in Silicon Valley so I just have one > question, why aren't you the richest man in the world? > > > in the sense of Church-Turing. Indeed, that is a basic truth which has > been used to design physical computers. > > I agree, they made the first and best description of how to organize matter > that obeys the laws of physics in a way that turns it into a universal > computer, and they made their description in the language best suited for > doing so, mathematics. > > > I could also reverse the charge: if you believe in primary matter, give > me just one evidence. > > OK, my computer doing mathematics. Now its your turn, show me mathematics > doing my computer. If that's too hard then just give me one example of PURE > mathematics doing something, anything. Even existing would be good enough, > just show me that pure mathematics exists without using matter that obeys the > laws of physics. Mathematics does a great job describing the universe but > without the universe there would be nothing to describe, if there weren’t at > least 2 things in it numbers would have no meaning. > > > the theology of Aristotle. > > Screw theology and screw Aristotle. > > >> in what sense is that story more real than the story of Harry Potter > written in the language of English? Actually I happen to think the triangular > number story is more real than the Harry Potter story because it is more > closely related to matter that obeys the laws of physics. But why do you > think so? > > > Because it follows from the simple principles on which most agree in > elementary arithmetic. > > And flying brooms are consistent with the laws of magic as described in > Harry Potter stories written in the language of English, and they are well > written stories with only a few plot holes. And mathematicians have also > written a story with only a few plot holes (such as the one Godel found) but > nevertheless I have never seen a broom fly and I've never seen a computation > made without matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
