> On 7 Jul 2018, at 19:31, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>So you now admit that the experts who specialize in the study of physical > phenomena have, just as I said, "never seen a demonstration of a non-physical > calculation “ . > > >Yes. Computability is born in mathematical logic, not in physics. > > And logicians who claim that were, without exception, physically born not > logically born.
Yes, but that does not mean that the physical is physically born. With mechanism, it is born in the universal machine internal phenomenology in arithmetic. > > > just show that the physical reality is Turing-complete. It only means > that the physical reality can implement a universal Turing machine. > > Yes, but the reverse is not true, a universal Turing machine can't implement > physical reality, by itself it can't change, it can't DO anything. > > Yes, you are right. That can be shown necessary. The physical arise from a non Turing emulanle first person indeterminacy. > >>And that dear Bruno flatly contradicts your statement "That contradicts > all publication in the field “ > > >I don’t see it. > > Did you see the "yes" in the quotation above? > > > >>If energy comes from pure numbers then why do experts in pure numbers > need energy even when they study pure numbers? > > >Because experts are physical being. > So physics can do something mathematics can not; mathematicians can use > energy to power their mind but they can't use mathematics to do so. > > > > With mechanism, they emerge in arithmetic or equivalent, though. > > The fact that mathematicians need calories obtained from food to do their > mathematics is experimental proof that they are NOT equivalent. > Nobody said that. On the contrary, they belong to different arithmetical phenomenology. > > > >>The ways numbers can be manipulated is infinite but only one of those > ways is compatible with physical reality > > >? > > ! > > >> and we call that way arithmetic; it is the only way that is correct, > > >That is utterly ridiculous, and circular. > > There are countless ways of manipulating numbers but only one of those ways > is consistent with physical reality, That is too vague, and can be interpreted in may ways. > we call that one way "correct, it can also be called "arithmetic". What's > circular about that? > > > Physicists assume arithmetic to make sense of the observations. > > Yes, whatever way that numbers are manipulated it must be consistent with > PHYSICAL observations, if physical reality was different correct arithmetic > would be different, Most people can conceive different physical laws, but nobody has ever comes with a different arithmetical reality, using arithmetic I its standard sense. > but its not so it isn't. And its not just physicists, the sheep herder who > invented arithmetic knew enough physics to make sure his new invention > called “arithmetic" was consistent with physics, for example he knew one of > his sheep wouldn't instantaneously become 2 sheep or 100 sheep or zero sheep. > > >you assume a primary physical reality. But that is not a valid way to > proceed when we do metaphysics with the scientific method. > > You admitted above that articles about calculations made without the use of > matter that obey the laws of physics are not in any of the physics journals > nor in any of the general science journals like Nature or Science because > there are no physical observations to report. So how on earth can you use the > scientific method if you have no observations to work on?? I show exactly how observation arise from arithmetic. Observable and physical does not mean primary. You talk like if I was proposing a new physics. I just do Mechanist Metaphysics/Theology. Then the physical is reduce to an arithmetical phenomenology, and we can test it, and indeed, it explains already many obscurities in the contemporary physics. > > >Anyway, this has been refuted. > > Sure it has, in that wonderful post you've been talking about for nearly a > decade that for some reason I have never seen and nobody I know has ever seen > either. Of course, you read only books in physics, which typically does not aboard such issue. > > >> so the number of existing functions is not only enumerable it is finite, > assuming by "existence" we mean there is a difference between "X " and "not > X”. > > > >? > > ! > > >>If you don't have a notation that allows you to represent a function in > a finite number of symbols then neither a person nor a machine can think > about it then it does not exist except in Plato's heaven, and there is no > detectable difference between Plato's heaven existing and Plato's heaven not > existing so, just like the luminiferous aether of old, it is useless > metaphysical baggage. > > >This is your opinion. But it contradicts your belief in computationalism > as I have shown. > It is my hope that sometime before my death I shall gaze upon that glorious > post of yours that explains all the inner workings of the univers > > >>Matter doesn't need anything to do stuff except the laws of physics, but > the laws of numbers are not enough to enable numbers to do anything. > > >As I said, that contradicts all the papers in the field. It shows that > you never study even one paper. > > I can't study even one paper because there is not even one paper published in > a reputable journal that claims to have proven the existence of a non > physical calculation; Computation are not physical by definition. Physical computation is a different concept, based on the mathematical notion of computation. If you can find just one paper providing a physical definition of computation, give the reference. > your paper hasn’t been published and its not hard to see why, its just silly. > It has been published. You are just lying. Your remarks are confusing and distracting. I guess that is the goal. You never discuss the ideas, you keep the ad hominem trolling. That is all what you do. > > > Again, you assume Aristotle criteria of reality. > > And again its Greeks Greeks Greeks, nothing but wall to wall Greeks 24/7 as > if no other humans have done anything interesting in the last 2500 years. Because you defend the theology of the institution against the scientific older theology, from which science is born. > > >>there is incontrovertible evidence that matter DOES produce > consciousness. > > >First show an evidence of primary matter. > First show me evidence you even know what philosophers mean when they use the > term "primary matter" because I don't think you do. > > You asked me this before. Primary needs “have to be assumed”. > >>Matter doesn't care if Human Beings understands how it pulls off this > trick or not, it will keep doing it regardless. > > >That is the christia, if not catholic, theory. > If you put a gun to my head I couldn’t say what you mean by that, but please > don't bother to tell me because whatever you mean I'm certain its stupid. > > Then there is no hope your will ever try, and you betray that you did never try, and indeed, you have misquoted systematically my answer since long. > > >It has been proved that consciousness and matter are not computable > > Nobody has ever proven that consciousness is not computable It is not even definable. Maybe you believe that truth is computable? > and I very much doubt anyone ever will, but I agree that matter is not > computable; that's why physics is more fundamental than mathematics and > that's why a Turing Machine needs matter if it is actually going to DO > something. In our physical reality? Sure. But the point is that if computationalism is correct that physical non computable reality arise from the non computable part of arithmetic, by the first person (plural) phenomenology. > > >>Seeing Washington and seeing Moscow is NOT the same conscious experience, > and because a change in consciousness always results in a change in the brain > the brains will no longer be identical. > > >But the person remains the same person with the criteria of personal > identity that you have given. > > The M man is NOT the W man even though both are the H man; Exactly. That is why there is an first person indeterminacy (FPI) in Helsinki. > if you find that concept too difficult to grasp ? I defend that concept since day one. > then make a Venn diagram out of it and you'll see why demanding to know what > one and only one city the H man will see is so silly and why drawing profound > consequences from that trivial fact is so ridiculous. Oh, so you say the Helsinki man will see the tow cities? Then explain me why both the W-man and the M-man write in their diary: “I see only one city”. > > >>And there is nothing indeterminate about any of it. It is all 100% > predictable but to obscure this fact it is necessary to introduce personal > pronouns with no referent. > > >I think you lie, simply. We did agree on all referents. > > Like hell we did! I've asked hundreds of times who the hell Mr. You is and I > never got a straight answer, You lie. > and I asked after the experiment was completed what one and only one city did > “you" That is silly. You must ask both of course. > end up seeing and again received no answer. Because you ask for one answer in a context where we need to interview all copies, obviously. Here, you mess up with the pronouns by deliberately forgetting that the question bears on the first personal accessible views. > So what the hell did we agree on?? That the W-guy and the M-guy are both implementation of the H-guy, like you just said above. But then we have to interview them both to get the FPI. >> >>> Infinitely many programs/number-relations lead to the same >> experiences, >> >> >>There are not infinitely many instances of 2+3=5, there is only one. > >But 2+3=5 is a truth. We were talking about “2+3=5”, not 2+3=5. > > There is also only one sequence of the ASCII symbols "2+3=5”. That is not related to what you quote. 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.
