> On 18 May 2018, at 01:37, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
You change the definition. And you seem to ignore that the notion of computation and implementation are definable in arithmetic, where they operate. You assume a primary matter, for which there has never been evidence for, and for which today we have evidence against, to only block an argument. That is bad science. > > > >and it operates under the laws of physics > > >That is a confusion between a Turing Machine 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. Read Turing and Church in Martin Davis “the undecidable”, or read the fourth chapter of Martin Davis’ computability and unsolvability. You answer a remark by doing the same confusion which was under critics. I guess that what you say three times is true. > > > In which metaphysical theory would you define what is a *real* machine. > > I don't deal in metaphysical theories, ? Then why this conversation. Why do you invoke your God (Primary Matter) to block a metaphysical argument? > that's your thing not mine, but I'll be happy to exactly define what a *real* > machine In metaphysics, when done with the scientific attitude, you cannot use “real” in this way. That is like the pope. It is bad philosophy. > is in a clear unambiguous way. A real Turing Machine is a Turing Machine that > can actually make a calculation. All Turing machine can do a computation, and none can distinguish, from their first person view, if their computations is implemented through a physical incarnation of a universal machine/number, or by an arithmetical implementation of that same universal machine/number. Unless some non Turing emulable, and non FPI-recoverable, magic is in play, but then you have no *reason* to say “yes” to the doctor, nor even a reason to accept Church’s thesis. > > > 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. Because in theology we have followed Aristotle, when computer science invites us to reread Plato. Because we are brainwashed with Aristotle theology since 1500 years. Then, when we do that, we can see that Plato’s theology fits quite well with the theories and evidences that we have today. That is not astonishing given that theology is forbidden since. Why do you defend all the time Aristotle theology (the belief in Primary Matter)? > > > 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, You repeat the same joke again and again. Here you confuse the content of a paper, where you could learn what is a computation, with a paper. > 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, Physics is neutral. Even metaphysics is neutral when done with the scientific method. Nobody knows the truth as such. You talk like an religious integrist. You claim to know 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? > > I tend to believe that ZFC is consistent. But I was assuming the context of your thought experience, which makes few sense as Goldbach conjecture is Pi_1, so his negation is sigma_1, and if the negation of Goldbach is true, ZF, even RA will prove that, necessarily. > > >>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 Real? That is what we search. You cannot use that word. It is automatically invalid. > 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. You confuse a machine with its description. And you confuse a computations with its description too. You seem to confuse a theory and its model/semantic. Even in arithmetic we cannot do. The number 1 is only contingently related to the sequence of symbols “1”. Bruno > > 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.
