On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> >> >>> * p**ysicists 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.* > By using p-adic numbers mathematicians found more than a century ago there are a infinity of ways the numbers could be arranged because there are a infinity of ways distance between numbers could be defined and all of them are logically consistent. If you want to use Euclidean geometry or even the sort of non-Euclidean geometry Einstein used you've got to use standard arithmetic, but there are other ways. For example, in the 7-adic system the distance between 56666 and 66666 is smaller than the distance between 66665 and 66666; and 28814 is closer to 2 than 2 is to 3. > >** > *Computation are not physical by definition.* > Sure if you define computation as something that happens in heaven that can never be observed, but only somebody more interested in pondering the number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin than in computers or science or anything humans can detect with their senses would do so. > > >** > *If you can find just one paper providing a physical definition of > computation,* > A physical computation is a computation and a computation is a physical computation, in other words the term "physical computation" is redundant, there are only computations. *>You asked me this before. Primary needs “have to be assumed”.* > I know, I asked before if you understood what philosophers meant by the term "primary matter " and from your answer it was clear you did not. I had hoped by now you had learned but apparently not. >> >> >> 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.* > In Helsinki the Helsinki man is experiencing Helsinki with 100% certainty without a trace of indeterminacy. >> >> 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?* > Bruno, you're always talking about definitions but this is one of those rare occasions where one is desperately needed, so if you want me to answer that question you must first give me a PRECISE definition of exactly what you mean by "the Helsinki man". I have a precise unambitious definition of "the Helsinki man", do you? >> >> 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. > If its silly to ask just one of the two after the duplication them its even sillier to ask to ask the question in Helsinki when there is only one person in existence to ask. >> >> 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.* > I also said above the W-guy is NOT the M-guy, and before I can say we agree about the H-guy I need to know exactly precisely what you mean by "the H-guy". 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]. 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.
