On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Peano Arithmetic (PA) can already prove the existence of all computation. > I don't need Peano or Plato to know that computations exist because I can produce one right now, 2+2=4; but then unlike stuff in Plato's mystical universe I am made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have the > quantum, phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with > mechanism, we have to to justify the quantum from the sum on all > computations, not just the quantum one. > I don't have a clue what that means and I doubt anyone else does either. > > Study the first chapter of Martin Davis > Only if the first chapter of Martin Davis's book can calculate 2+2 as well as I just did. > > Sometimes I have the feeling that you take for granted a physical > ontology, but that is automatically doubtful once you understand that the > notion of computation does not require any physical assumption. In fact K, > S and the combination (x y): (K K) …(S S), ((K K) K) ((K K) S), … with only > the two laws > > ((K x) y) = x > (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z)) > > Is enough. > Don't tell me, tell INTEL that they've been wasting their time all these years making microchips when all they needed was those two lines. > > > (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is either true or false independently of you > verifying this or not. > I agree, but verifying is what calculation is all about, and to do that you need physics. And that's why I say physics is more fundamental than mathematics, physics can do math but math can't do physics. Correct calculations are not the only things that exist, incorrect ones do too, to sort the correct from the incorrect you need physics, you need INTEL's microchips. > > You seem also to have a problem to distinguish a description of > computation, which also exist in arithmetic, and the fact that > participating to some true arithmetical relations, a computation is truly > emulated. That confuse syntax and semantic, and is well explained in > mathematical logic textbooks. > And yet, as I've pointed out over and over again and over again. every one of those mathematical logic textbooks would get a big fat* F* on a first grade arithmetic test because they can't make even the simplest calculation, but if math was more fundamental than physical mechanism and more real as you claim then those books certainly should be able to. I can make a calculation because the atoms in my brain are organized in a way than enables me to do so but the atoms in those textbooks are not. 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]. 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.
