On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> A Turing Machine knows no theories
> I have no clues why you say so.
I say so because a Turing Machine knows nothing excepts what state it
should go into, if it should write a 1 or a 0, and if it should move left
or right or halt. That's it. And yet it can calculate anything that can be
calculated provided that it just follows the laws of physics when it moves
and it uses a minimum amount of energy (that can also be calculated) and
produces entropy whenever it changes one symbol to another.
>> and it operates under the laws of physics
> That is a confusion between a Turing
> and a physical implementation of a Turing machine.
And for years you have been confused by the difference between the 2
different types of Turing Machines, the Turing Machines that can make a
calculation and the Turing Machines that can not. I like the type that can.
*> In which metaphysical theory would you define what is a *real*
> machine. *
I don't deal in metaphysical theories, that's your thing not mine, but I'll
be happy to exactly define what a *real* machine is in a clear unambiguous
way. A real Turing Machine is a Turing Machine that can actually make a
> *> *
> *when we assume Aristotle’s metaphysics [...]*
Bruno, I really want to know, why do you keep talking about those stupid
ignorant ancient Greeks who didn’t know where the sun went at night? You
seem incapable of writing an entire post without talking about them
regardless of the subject.
> The laws of physics he nothing to do with the laws of computability and
> computation. I suggest you read the original papers of the discoverers of
> the universal machine (reprinted for example in Martin Davis
If Martin Davis 's paper can make a calculation then send it to Apple, they
would get much better battery life out of their next generation iPhone if
they just stuff the paper inside it instead of a energy hungry microchip.
> *What I said was only that if a computer find an even number not sum of
> two primes, I would believe the computer over a proof in ZF.*
I would trust the computer more than the axioms too, I would because I
think physics always tells the truth, but that is not why you also trust
the computer over the axioms; you gave your reason for doing so but I
couldn't make any sense out of it.
> *> The reason is that the negation of Goldbach conjecture is sigma_1,
> so if a computer can refute Goldbach, so can ZF. You were assuming
> implicitly that ZF is inconsistent.*
Why don't you believe the ZFC axioms are still consistent , Goldbach is
still true, and all computers are always wrong when they say a particular
very large even number is not the sum of two primes?
>> If two physical theories try to explain the same phenomena then they
>> are ALWAYS contradictory, otherwise they'd be the same theory,
> *Of course not. QM, for example, came up with different theories, proved
> to be equivalent, but they are still different (cf Heisenberg versus
> Schoredinger, versus Feynmann),*
None of these things contradicted the other, they are saying the same thing
with different words (or equations).
> *you have to explain how that primary matter makes “more real” some
> computations, and "less real” others.*
No, it would be nice to know why but I am under no obligation to
explain why a real Turing Machine uses energy, produces entropy, and makes
calculations, but a description of a Turing Machine in a closed book can do
none of those things; I just have to observe that is the way things are.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.