> On 28 May 2018, at 18:09, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 6:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 = x > x + 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 = y > x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) > x+0 = x > x+s(y) = s(x+y) > x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > Provides 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 > > <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 > > <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 > > <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 > > <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 > > <https://www.amazon.com/Giant-Book-Insults-Incorporating-Occasions/dp/0806508817> > > Please stop doing that > No. > >
You, Sir, are definitely a troll. Your answer here is just a bunch of begging the question, and of spreading misinformations, + blatant inconsistencies, on the very subject of computability. Whatever I would answer would be used to aggravate this. You are a liar, as many said already, and a troll. You are not interested in learning anything, but in putting the mind-body problem even more deep under the rug. I let to the others, if interested in trolling, the (easy, and less easy) exercices of counting the number of false statements in your post. There are so much, and at many different levels (which is why some are less easy than other). Bruno > > 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 [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.
