On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 6:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> *> You ask me examples of computations?* No, I did not ask you that. I asked you for an example of a computation made WITHOUT THE USE OF MATTER THAT OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. > > *> OK, that is fair enough.Let me give you some example. In the Turing > formalism, with combinators, and with elementary arithmetic, and an > informal one with Diophantine polynomial.1) With Turing machine, which are > set of quadruple q_i S_j S_k q_r [blah blah] So, a computation, which is > an abstract sequence of [wow wow] * First of all that's not an example, that's just another goddamn definition. And second of all if its abstract that means it exists in the form of a thought not a physical structure, but you can't give me an example (although I'm sure you could dig up many definitions) of a thought exiting WITHOUT THE USE OF MATTER THAT OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. > > > > > > > *> > Example SS(KI)(KK)(SS)S(KK)(KI(KK)))(SS)S(KK)I(SS)KK(SS)(I(SS)KK(SS)(SS)K(SS)* What the hell do you think that proves? Those are symbols computed by your physical brain typed by your physical computer transmitted to my physical computer by physical means and then interpreted by my physical brain. If computations are not subject to the limitation of physics then tell me, what is the seventieth non-Mesmer prime that is larger than 2^77,232,917 − 1 ? Since you're not limited by trivialities like the speed of light, quantum mechanics, energy considerations , the nature of space and time or any other physical factor I expect to see your answer by tomorrow morning at the latest. > *> He important point is that the definition of computation [blah blah]* To hell with definitions, definitions can’t compute > *> The definition can be done with [...]* OK Bruno sit down and let me explain to you something about definitions. All your definitions are made of mathematical symbols, and those symbols have there own definitions that consist of more mathematical symbols. You only have a finite number of mathematical symbols in your toolbox so eventually you’re going to have the definition of symbol X needing symbol Y and the definition of symbol Y needing symbol X. The only way to break out of that meaningless circularity and put some meat on the bone is not with more definitions but with examples, in particular examples from the PHYSICAL world. Without physical examples a mountain full of dictionaries wouldn’t help and the English language would just be meaningless noise and the Mathematical language just a game played with squiggles of no more profundity that a crossword puzzle. >>I want an EXAMPLE not another silly definition. But you can't provide one >> nor can anyone else. > > > > *I just did.* BULLSHIT! > *> Both examples can be translated into pure number theoretical relation* Nothing can be translated into anything without matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > *> x + 0 = xx + s(y) = s(x + y)Try to compute s(0) + (s0).Again the key > point is that Logic + the axioms:0 ≠ s(x)s(x) = s(y) -> x = yx = 0 v Ey(x = > s(y)) x+0 = xx+s(y) = s(x+y)x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+xProvides a > Turing-complete (but not Löbian) theory, that is, a universal machinery and > machine.As you can see, no assumption on a physical reality is made* True, no assumption of physical reality has been made and no computation made without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics has been made either. If I'm wrong about that then the simplest way to prove I’m wrong is to make a calculation that physics could never do even in theory. The 7918th Busy Beaver number is large but finite and if all the Real Numbers exist (I have my doubts but I'm sure you don't) then the 7918th Busy Beaver number exists, so tell me what it is. If you are not limited by the boundaries of the merely physical this task should be easy. > *> This is needed only to ensure the existence of a physical computation, > which is a much more particular concept.* I maintain physical computation is the only type of computation there is, and you can't prove me wrong by dreaming up yet another definition. And I don't want to see another computation made with your physical brain, show me a computation made with your non-physical brain, and the best way to prove it was done non-physically is to compute something physics can't, like finding the 7918th Busy Beaver number, its finite but too big for physics to handle. In your last post you claim you've already made a small non-physical computation, but size is a mere physical thing so making a calculation that is a little bit larger should be no barrier to you. So the second number I expect to hear from you by tomorrow morning is the 7918th Busy Beaver number. > *> It will of course be defined only after* Bruno, no finite number of definitions are going to be enough to allow you to break out of the meaningless logical loop you’ve gotten yourself into. > >> and that is exactly why numbers, with LISP and lambda-expressions by >> themselves can't calculate a goddamn thing . I mean, do the programers at >> Microsoft really have to constantly remind their bosses that for the >> computer code they’ve just written to actually do what they claim it can do >> it must first be run on a computer?? > > > *> That is not relevant for the logical point.* The relevant point is the Microsoft programers are confident their bosses won’t look at a printout of the code they've written and fire then because the symbols on the printed page don’t start jumping around and start computing right then; although they didn’t specifically say so the programers are confident their bosses know that their code and any code must be implemented into a physical computer before it can do anything. >> For that to be relevant to our topic Godel would first have to establish >> that "register R" actually exists independently of atoms that obey the laws >> of physics, and that register R had at least 3 places in it, and the >> contents of the third place in that register is 5. And Godel did not do any >> of that, he just made a definition, nobody has ever done that and nobody >> has ever done anything even a little bit like that and nobody ever will. >> And it may be true that Godel gave definitions of things without referring >> to physics but definitions alone don't automatically cause things to >> spring into existence. > > > > >* Gödel, on the contrary defines the register R in arithmetic* > I don’t give a damn what Godel or anyone else defines, definitions can’t make something spring into existence. > *> explicitly, and its existence is a simple consequence of the > fundamental theorem of arithmetic.* Without physics arithmetic wouldn’t exist much less the fundamental theorem of it. If there were not at least 2 objects or actions in the physical universe the statements 1+1=2 and 1+1=1 would be equally true and equally false, neither would have any meaning. > *> see Davis Chapter 4, or just Gödel’s 1931 paper.* You’re name dropping doesn’t impress me. > *> You assume a computation needs a physical reality to exist, but that is > sheer nonsense for a mathematical logician. * If that were true then mathematical logicians would be complete imbeciles, but its not true. And I don’t assume, I *KNOW *that up to May 2018 every single computation any human being has ever made or seen involved matter that obeys the laws of physics, and I *KNOW *that as of 2018 no human being has even proposed a coherent hypothesis about how non-physical computations might be performed; I can’t prove that situation won’t change tomorrow but I would be willing to bet a considerable amount of money that it won’t. * > There are very interesting things to say on physical computation, like > the fact that it does not need energy (energy is used only to erase, but > erasing is not necessary to get Turing Universality, as has Wang proved in > the 50s).* If you can’t erase anything then you’re going to need an infinite memory, but without matter that obeys the laws of physics nobody has ever stored even one bit of information much less an infinite amount. And if you do erase things then that will take energy, the minimum amount is the Landauer limit, it is E= kT ln(2) where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature of the heat sink of the computer in degrees Kelvin. And energy, the Boltzmann constant, and temperature are all physical concepts. > *> I use existence as given by the axioms I start with. You use existence > by invoking a god* https://www.amazon.com/Giant-Book-Insults-Incorporating-Occasions/dp/0806508817 > *> In your christian theology where [...]* https://www.amazon.com/Giant-Book-Insults-Incorporating-Occasions/dp/0806508817 > *> Assuming your christian theology,* https://www.amazon.com/Giant-Book-Insults-Incorporating-Occasions/dp/0806508817 > *> You really talk like a dogmatic believer.* https://www.amazon.com/Giant-Book-Insults-Incorporating-Occasions/dp/0806508817 > *> It is up to you to define primary matter* Why on earth is it up to me to define primary matter when you’re the one who introduced Leibniz’s term? I don’t even like the phrase and never use it myself, I just don’t find it very useful. > >> nobody has ever found a single example of something non physical doing >> ANYTHING, > > > *> Doing anything physical, you mean. 2 divides 6. That is something.* > Yes that is something, that is something deduced by matter inside your head that obeys the laws of physics. *> Computations is not purely mathematical notion. * I know, that’s what I’ve been saying! Computation like information is physical . *> You are the one invoking your god. * https://www.amazon.com/Giant-Book-Insults-Incorporating-Occasions/dp/0806508817 > *> Please stop doing that* No. > *> you stopped at step 3 without succeeding to explain to anybody why.* I believe I explained before exactly why I stopped reading at step 3, one does not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad. 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.
