The answer is right in front of us. Quantum collapse indicates that a photon must pass through a slit, and become either a wave or a particle. But the answer gets more complex, with Wigner's 4 body solution, with the photons becoming either Yanny or Laurel, as opposed to Alice and Bob.
-----Original Message----- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, May 21, 2018 7:37 pm Subject: Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ? On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > You were changing the mathematical definition of computations given > independently by Church, Post, Turing, Markov , I don't know what definition you're referring to but if it doesn't have something about actually obtaining an answer then its idiotic, but neither Church, Post, Turing nor Markov were idiots. > which are not dependent of any assumption in physics, to a definition Definition be damned! I don't want a definition I want an answer, I want an answer to the question "How much is 2+2?" and there is absolutely positively no way to obtain that answer without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. > You are right. A definition cannot do a calculation. Only a machine/number/combinator can do that. But there are plenty of such entities in arithmetic. Well for gods sake stop wasting your time on this list and tell INTEL about this revolutionary new discovery and then watch as the world is transformed beyond recognition overnight!! > My belief are private. Mine aren't but then I am in a different situation than you, I am not ashamed by my philosophical beliefs. >> 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. > No problem here. Leibniz, who invented the term, said all "primary matter" brought to the table was continuity, soul and shape were separate things. So if you mix in soul and shape with "primary matter" you end up with "secondary matter" and that's the stuff that we observe and that can actually do things. You have made no secret in showing your contempt for "primary matter", but if it doesn't exist that means soul and shape can not be separated from matter, so "secondary matter" is the only type of matter there is. And that is why I say it would make you more matter orientated than I am. And that is also why I said you don't know what "primary matter" means. >> 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, > Of course not. I point to some book and paper which provides a counter-example. LIKE HELL IT DOES! The damn book can't calculate 2+2 nor can the book tell me the answer to the question "How much is 2+2?" without using matter that obeys the laws of physics > You fake to see so to make your joke It's not funny and I'm not joking. > we both know that a book is not a machine. Exactly, a book is not a machine. And only a machine of the general type described by Turing can make a calculation. > arithmetic contains both the description of the machine, and the machine itself. It contains both the description of the computation, and the computations themselves. And yet without the help of physics arithmetic is totally unable to answer the question "How much is 2+2?". So like the word "God" the word "computation" has a meaning in the Brunospeak language that is unrelated to the English meaning of the word, but I don't know what those meanings are because only one person on the planet is fluent in Brunospeak and I'm not him >> 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? > You ask me again something impossible. Obviously, but ask yourself a question "Exactly why is it impossible?". Because physics can do something that mathematics can't. You may have reasons why physics can do something that mathematics can't and they may be good reasons or they may be bad reasons it really doesn't matter because for whatever reason the undeniable FACT remains physics can do something that mathematics can't. Of course not just any old arrangement of matter can perform calculations, Turing's genius was in showing us exactly what sort of matter arrangements can make calculations and what sort can't. > But primary matter leads to contradiction [...] I think you should stop talking about "primary matter" until you learn what the phrase means. You keep telling me to read Plato, well I'm telling you to read Leibniz, he is after all the guy who invented the term. >> why did you say "I would believe the computer over a proof in ZF”? > Because a computer is an incarnation of a much simpler theory that ZF. A computer isn't the incarnation of any theory, it's just a lump of matter that obeys the laws of physics. >> If not, if you still stand by it, then that explains why you would not say that t 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 > How would I know that there was no bug in the computer? Because all the computer on the planet repeated the calculation and got the same answer, or for some other reason it doesn't matter because this is a thought experiment and the premise is there is no error in the ZFC based proof that says a number with certain properties can not exist and there is no error in a computer that produce a number that has those exact same properties, the question is "which one do you believe?". Neither of us said we'd believe the axioms over the computer because neither of us is insane. > if ZFC gives a not too long proof that I can understand, I will believe more ZF than the computer. Well..., I didn't see that coming,.... I stand corrected. > I believe only things that I can prove to myself. How can you prove an axiom is true? You can't, but you can prove that a axiom is false. If the logic of the proof is correct but the results are wrong then one or more of the axioms you started with must be bad. > I doubt less elementary arithmetic than any equation in physics, You wouldn't know any elementary arithmetic or anything else without matter that obeys the laws of physics. > Define “real”, then. I can't until you define "define". Then define "define "define"". Then define "define "define "define""". Then ... > >> You cannot use that word [real] . >> Yes I can because I precisely define it, > By invoking your God. The trouble with Brunospeak is the meaning of words change on a daily basis, I said a real Turing machine is one that can make a calculation, so today "God" is anything that can answer the question "How much is 2+2?", but nobody knows what the ASCII string G-O-D will mean tomorrow in Brunospeak. >> 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. > Assuming “real” 747. But that beg the question entirely. I have no idea what that means. > >> And you confuse a computations with its description too. >> So at least you admit there is a difference between those two things. > I insist on that difference since the start. So the description of how computations work that Turing gave us in his famous 1936 paper was not itself a computation, and that is why we put microprocessors and not copies of Turing's paper inside computers. >> a computation can make a computation but a description of a computation can not. > That is entirely correct. Nobody ever said that a description of a computation can do a computation. You need a universal machinery. You need matter that obey the laws of physics organized in the way Turing described in 1936. > What you seem to ignore is that the arithmetical reality is such a universal machinery, Stop telling me that and SHOW ME! Add 2+2 without using matter or energy or increasing entropy. 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. -- 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.
