On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:59 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 > > > > *See any (serious) textbook in logic.* > In other words YOU DON'T KNOW. Nobody says "the proof you are wrong is in some unspecified book" if they have the ability to provide a better retort. >> >> >> but if it doesn't have something about actually obtaining an answer then >> its idiotic, but neither Church, Post, Turing nor Markov were idiots. > > > *>Contradiction.* > Yes, and therefore we have an indirect proof by contradiction that when Church, Post, Turing or Markov was talking about computation they were talking about actually getting an answer. > > > we know since about a century, are not physical notion, but purely > arithmetical one. > BULLSHIT. > > >>> >> >>> 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 > > > > > That joke again. > Then please let me in on the joke because I don't get it, I don’t see the humor. Far from being funny I think its a tragedy that in the 21st century somebody, who no doubt considers himself an intellectual, believes the ancient Greeks reached the absolute pinnacle of human achievement and that calculations can be made without matter that obey the laws of physics even though there is* OVERWHELMING* evidence to the contrary because Plato said it could and the authority of Plato is absolute. > > > *You also confuse book and its content.* > OK forget the book we'll just deal with its contents. If one day Apple decided to put the contents of a book about computational theory into their next iPhone instead of a microprocessor do you think Apple's stock price would go up or down the next day? > > > you confuse computations and description of computations, > I think a microprocessor can perform a calculation but a description of a computation such as one in a book, can not. You believe the opposite. I ask anyone who is reading this to explain why I am the one who is confused about the difference between a computation and a description of a computation and not Bruno. > > > *Read Gödel 1931. * > Godel's 1931 paper is one of the greatest achievements in thought in the 20th century, but there is no evidence Godel's 1931 paper can calculate 2+2. And Godel's 1931 paper only exists because the matter between Godel's ears obeyed the laws of physics back in 1931. > >* * > *physics emerge from the numbers.* > You've got it backwards, numbers emerge from physics. > > > > *You need only a physical reality to get a physical answer* > So you admit it, physics can do something pure mathematics can't. > > > explain me what is primary matter > I think you should have asked somebody what "primary matter" is many years ago before you started insisting in almost ever post that "primary matter" didn't exist. > > > and how it makes a physical computations conscious > Turing (maybe you've heard of him) explained how to arrange atoms in such a way that the laws physics force atoms to make computations and behave intelligently. And if Charles Darwin was right then consciousness must be a unavoidable byproduct of intelligent behavior. > > > On the contrary, you are using Deutsch idea that computation are physical, > which is not the standard definition given by the Church-Turing original > thesis. > You are incorrect. The Church-Turing thesis says a human or anything else can compute something if and only if a Turing Machine can calculate it; and I think that's true. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> 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. >> > > >* * > *Assuming Aristotle theology.* > They I guess you are assuming that "Aristotle theology" (whatever the hell that is) is true because you just said "You ask me again something impossible".. > >> >> 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. > > > >** > *FACT?* > Yes I think so unless you can show me a FACT to the contrary, like something that can calculate 2+2 without using matter or energy or producing entropy. > > >** > *you will not see ONE paper of physics which assumes primary matter,* > First of all you don't know what "primary matter" means. And second of all you see neither the acceptance nor the rejection of "primary matter" in modern physics papers because it turned out Leibniz's distinction between primary and secondary matter was not scientifically useful. Leibniz was a great man full of ideas, but this idea went nowhere. > *> There are many level of Turing universality in a modern computer. > Only the bottom one is directly physical.* > So our entire universe could be a huge video game run on some alien supercomputer, and the alien's world could also be a video game run a mega-alien mega-supercomputer, but eventually at the bottom level you've got a real computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >> >> 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. > > > > > Then what you assume is simply that ZFC is inconsistent, > In those unusual circumstances, which I don't expect to happen, that would be the only sane think to do, and that's why I was dumbfounded when you said "*if ZFC gives a not too long proof that I can understand, I will believe more ZF than the computer*". >> >> How can you prove an axiom is true? You can’t, > > > >* * > *Indeed. But you are the one claiming that physicalism is a fact, when it > is an axiom.* > I think it is a safe axiom because there are no known facts that contradict it an plenty of facts that support it, however if you supply me with an example of something that can calculate 2+2 without using matter of energy or producing entropy I will reject that axiom without hesitation. You can never prove an axiom is true but you can prove an axiom is false, and yet you said even if there was a fact showing the ZF axioms were wrong "*I will believe more ZF than the computer*". > > If I can prove that an axiom A is false, then I can prove the axiom ~A, > You can't prove axiom ~A is false if axiom ~A is not false, that is to say if no fact exists that could contradict it; or at least you'd better hope you can't prove it because if you can then you're entire logical system is worthless. 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.
