> On 23 Jun 2018, at 17:47, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > A physical computation is required for a physical observer to get a > result, but that remains true when the physical computation + the observer > are themselves the product of a computation > > If both the physical computation and the observer are the product of some > sort of mystical Platonic computation
I talk about computation, as realised in the standard interpretation of arithmetic, or combinators, or game of life, etc. There is nothing mystical about this. The mystical aspect come later when a machine introspect itself. > then why is it the observer’s responsibility to make the physical computation? To share the results of the computations in a first person plural reality, which exists by arithmetic and its incompleteness, assuming Mechanism will not be refuted of course. That is what needed to be tested. > And why does the observer get an erroneous answer if he makes a mistake in > that physical calculation? The biggest question of all, without matter and > the laws that govern how it interacts how does Plato determine the difference > between a correct calculation and a incorrect calculation? The notion of correctness does not apply to computation, but to statements or proposition. Then, with mechanism, we do get physical laws, and we do get apparent “primary matter”, which is what emerges from all computations going through your state at a level below your substitution level. > I know its against your nature but when answering these questions please > don't start talking about the term "definition” because that is a human > invention that can not magically conjure things into existence. And you need > to explain why out of the infinite number of possible definitions there is > something special about the particular one that you picked that has nothing > to do with physics. This is not clear. I do not see what you are trying to say. > > We’ve known for more than a century that with p-adic numbers there are an > infinite number of ways arithmetic could work and all of them are logically > consistent, but they all give radically different answers from the arithmetic > we find most useful in our physical world. > All Turing complete theory provides the same set of all computations, and that is enough to get the global indeterminacy of any machine with respect to that universal set. > For example, in 10-adic arithmetic the numbers 4739 and 5739 differ by only > one part in a thousand and 72,694,473 and 82,694,473 differ by only one part > in 10 million. But p-adic arithmetic won’t help you much if you’re trying to > figure out how fast a ball rolling down an inclined plane will go. > > Not problem with this. Bruno > > 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.
