On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > >> 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.* > Huh?? I change the definition of what from what to what" > > > *And you seem to ignore that the notion of computation and implementation > are definable in arithmetic* > Definitions can't make calculations, only matter that obeys the laws of physics can. > > You assume a primary matter > > for which there has never been evidence for > You keep saying that over and over and over again but I don't think you even know what primary matter means. Leibniz invented the term and it means matter in itself in bulk. Leibniz said primary matter was not a complete substance because it is missing some key things, soul and shape, and therefore by itself primary matter is passive and can't do anything; if you mix those things in with primary matter then you get what Leibniz called secondary matter, and that is complete and that is active and can do things. When you say you don't believe in primary matter you are saying you don't think matter soul and shape are separate things, they can not be separated, you think secondary matter is the only sort of matter that there is. And that would make your beliefs far more matter orientated than mine because although I don't believe in the soul I do believe in shape , although I prefer to say information . I think information and matter, although related, are 2 different things and I think Leibniz was right, matter that has not been organized by information is just a chaotic high entropy lump that can’t produce work or make calculations or do anything else. > >> >> 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”,* > Don't tell me tell 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. > > *You repeat the same joke again and again* I'm not joking I'm dead serious!! Ever time I say nothing can be calculated without matter that obeys the laws of physics and even then only if that matter is in the form of a Turing Machine you point to some book or paper as a counterexample, well stop telling me and show me, show me how Apple used your idea in their new iPhone. Put up or shut up. > *> Why do you invoke your God (Primary Matter) to block a metaphysical > argument? * > Not only are you ignorant what the term "primary matter" means you also don't know what the word "God" means. 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,* > Then a microchip is a real Turing Machine and a description of one in a book is NOT a real Turing Machine, just as a description of Hogwarts castle in a Harry Potter book is a real description but it is NOT a real castle. You confuse fact and fantasy. > > ** > *computer science invites us to reread Plato.* > I politely decline the invitation because I prefer to read authors who know where the sun goes at night. > >* * > *Here you confuse the content of a paper, where you could learn what is a > computation, with a paper. * > I'm confuse?!! I think you're the one who is very VERY *VERY* confused, but it would be easy to prove me wrong; just calculate 2+2, you are free to use the contents of that paper you were talking about or any other paper or anything else, the only restrictions I place is that you are not allowed to use matter or energy or to increase entropy when you perform the calculation, other than that anything goes. If you successfully accomplish my little task I will publicly declare that I have been wrong all these years and you have been totally right and is a genius. So what do you say, do you accept my challenge? > > >>> >> >>> *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.* > Then why did you say "I would believe the computer over a proof in ZF"? > >* * > *You talk like an religious integrist.* > You need new material. https://www.amazon.com/Giant-Book-Insults-Incorporating-Occasions/dp/0806508817 > > *You claim to know the truth. * > I claim physics knows the truth, that's why I (and you too) would believe a computer if it said a particular even number was not the sum of 2 primes even if ZF or ANY set of axioms said such a number was impossible. Physics can not lie but axioms can. >> >> 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. > I do too, so I don't expect it to happen but if there were ever a conflict between ZFC and a number a computer had calculated my belief in ZFC would be totally and irretrievably shattered. So do you retract your previous statement "I would believe the computer over a proof in ZF"? If not, if you still stand by it, then that explains why you would not say that he ZFC axioms are still consistent and Goldbach is still true despite the even number the computer found, you would take the side of the computer as any sane man would because you implicitly assume physics is more trustworthy than any set of axioms. > >>> >> >>> *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? * > Yes real. > > > That is what we search. > Then this is you lucky day because your search is over, a real Turing Machine is one that can make a calculation. > > > You cannot use that word. > Yes I can because I precisely define it, in fact I can't think of any definition of anything that is more precisely defined. And if that's not enough I also provided numerous examples of it. > > *You confuse a machine with its description.* > I'm not the one who thinks a description of a machine can do everything a real machine can do that is made of atoms, uses energy, produces entropy and makes calculations. I'm not confused by the difference between a 747 and a picture of a 747, one can fly me to Tokyo and one can't. > > > And you confuse a computations with its description too. > So at least you admit there is a difference between those two things. I'll tell you exactly what I thing the difference is, a computation can make a computation but a description of a computation can not. That's why manufactures don't stuff books on computer theory inside computers and thats why they prefer microchips. 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. 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.
