> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:27, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > But you should not confuse the arithmetical reality with a book, be it > > virtual or relatively material. > One of us is very confused that much is certain. You think arithmetical > reality is the only reality there is >
I have never said what I think. That is private. But I can prove that if mechanism is true, then we cannot assume more than arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) without being inconsistent. > and the book is real > Plausibly. But that does not entail that it is primitively real. > but for unknown reasons it can't calculate 2+2. As for me I think if you want > to avoid confusion you should stop referring people to a book whenever they > ask for a demonstration of a non-physical calculation. > > That is ridiculous. The demonstration is given in those books. It is long and technical. > > If you would open and read the books, > OK already you're asking me to do something mathematics could never do. > In your theory, which is inconsistent with your faith in computationalism. > Forget reading just opening a book requires energy, and all the Real Numbers > and all the Complex Numbers and all the p-adic numbers put together don't > have one electron volt's worth of energy. And even after I've finished my > arduous struggle and managed to get the book open it orders me to perform > calculations, and that will require even more energy. > > In your theory, which is inconsistent with your faith in computationalism. > > you would see that they do not just gives the recipe, but shows that those > > recipe are enacted > Yes, the book shows recipes for getting answers to questions > No. The book explains that computation is a purely arithmetical notion, assuming nothing about the physical reality, not even that there is a primitive physical reality. > and how those recipes are enacted by matter that obeys the laws of physics. > They do not mention physics at all. > The book will say things like "there exists an element x in the set Y with > blah blah properties" and that may indeed be true but there is are also a > infinite number of elements in set Y that do NOT have the blah blah property, > and then the book will either give an existence proof that the element x must > be in that infinite sea of other elements somewhere but give no hint of how > to find out what it is, or it will give a recipe for finding x, a recipe that > only matter that obeys the laws of physics can perform. > Wrong. > The recipe in the book will say "let n be blah blah" but an equation can't > "let" anything, only you can. And the recipe will say things like "multiply > equation 10-42 by blah blah, cancel out what can be canceled out, then > integrate from zero to n and you will find x". But a equation can't "let" > things or “multiply" things or "cancel out" things or "integrate” things > because equations can’t “do” anything, only you can “do” things, only you can > perform those calculations and fortunately you are made of matter that obeys > the laws of physics. > > > I gave explanation, but to do this here would be very long. > I have no doubt it would be long, very very long, but I don't want an > explanation, I want a DEMONSTRATION, a demonstration of a non-physical > calculation, and I'm sure the Intel Corporation would like to see that > demonstrated too. I don't demand anything fancy, 2+2=4 would be fine. The > fundamental problem is that in mathematical heaven incorrect calculations > are, not astronomically but INFINITELY, more common than correct ones, and > the ghost of Plato has no way of telling one from the other, so its a good > thing that matter can. > > Matter cannot do that either, or if it can, ask for the patent (and abandon computationalism). > > do you understand the difference between a book and a mathematical reality? > Yes, but then unlike you I don't believe the mathematical language created > everything, and I don't think the English language did either. > > You seem unaware of the difference between language, theories and models (realities). 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.
