> On 4 Jul 2018, at 23:28, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a > book and nobody ever will. > > > That contradicts all publication in the field. > > Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico or > other varieties of junk science, but show me one citation from the journal > Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters or The Journal of Applied > Physics demonstrating a non-physical calculation. Just one will do.
You need to consult papers in mathematical logic journal. Obviously if “scientific” means physics, you will not find the papers I am mentioning, but that means you beg the question, and adopt the metaphysical option of physicalism. > > > You seem to never have open any book nor paper in that subject > > That's because opening a book requires energy as does performing > calculations, and pure numbers are unable to give me any energy so I am > unable to open a book much less perform a calculation. > > You confuse theoretical levels. You would say that group theory assumes the existence of chalk and blackboard. I begin to think you miss the notion of theory. What I said is that the notion and existence of computation does not presuppose anything physical. I am not saying that a human does not need some energy to study mathematics. The point will be that if mechanism is true, that energy is not a fundamental reality but an appearance emerging from arithmetic. > > the whole point will be that there is nothing unique concerning any > computations. All are implemented in infinitely many ways in Arithmetic. > > Yes and out of those infinitely many ways of doing arithmetic all but one of > them is incorrect, No, in this case I am alluding to an infinity of “correct” one. > that is to say only one of those ways is compatible with physical reality No, they all are. > and that is the one the sheep herder who invented arithmetic many thousands > of years ago decided to use because it was the only one that helped him with > his job. > > Your fundamental blunder is you've forgotten what a function is, you've > forgotten what your high school algebra teacher said on the very first day of > class, he said a function is a machine, I am not that old. The machines are enumerable, but the functions are not. There are much more functions than machine, like there are much more truth than proofs. > you put something into it and if you perform the calculations it says to > perform something different will come out. A function is instructions written > in a very compact form No. That is a program, or machine. Most functions cannot be so compactly represented. > but by itself it can't do anything. By itself, nothing can do anything. Doing is relational. But in the arithmetical reality we can define what “doing things” can mean. That is the whole point. I have exemplified this in some recent post, but you have not commented it. > A cake recipe is not a cake nor can it make a cake without the help of a > baker, a baker that is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Straw man. > > >but physics can. > > Really? > > Yes really. > > > How? > > With NAND and NOR circuits made from mechanical rods ratchets and gears or > vacuum tubes or transistors or microchips or some other arrangement of matter > that obeys the laws of physics, such as the neurons in the bone box on your > shoulders. Assuming physicalism, but then you eliminate (again) first persons and consciousness, or you need to add an identity link which is shown not working with computationalism (nor with Everett QM). > > >If mechanism is true, I don’t see how that primary matter can influence > consciousness or create it > > It does not make the slightest difference if you understand the connection > between matter and consciousness or not because it remains a experimental > FACT that when your brain changes your consciousness changes and when your > consciousness changes you brain changes. Matter doesn't care that you have > not figgured out how matter produces consciousness , matter does it does it > anyway. Matter produce consciousness? How? If you invoke Digital Mechanism, then arithmetic produces consciousness too, and if you think Matter is needed for consciousness, tell me its role, and what is it there that the arithmetical reality miss. > > >without invoking some non Turing computable, and non FPI recoverable, > notions. > > Nobody has ever provided even the tiniest speck of evidence that there is a > connection between Turing non-computability and consciousness other than > consciousness is sorta weird and non-computability is sorta weird. That is my point. > > >A book cannot make a computation, trivially, but a number, relatively to > other numbers, do it, thanks to the laws of addition and multiplication. > > Why those rules when there are a infinite number of ways two numbers can be > associated with a third number? Good point. That is what lead us to the *global* first person indeterminacy. You said it yourself, two numerically identical brain, in two different places, will be associated to the same consciousness. That is the basic reason of the first person indeterminacy. Infinitely many programs/number-relations lead to the same experiences, with probabilities on the differentiating consciousness, like with the WM experience, but on an infinite domain. > Because even though the sheep herder who invented arithmetic lived thousands > of years before Newton he knew intuitively that only one of those ways was > compatible with the laws of physics. Only by introducing actual infinities in the brain or body. But then computationalism is false. 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.
