On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> > >>> *>>* >>> *All Turing universal system would do. p-adic numbers presupposes >>> elementary arithmetic.* >>> >> >> >> >> It would be equally true to say elementary arithmetic presupposes p-adic >> numbers, although humans were not smart enough to figure that out until >> 1897. >> > > *>I doubt this. I am not sure you can define p-adic number without > assuming natural number.s If you can, show me.* > The invention of the p-adic number system proved that the way your second grade teacher taught you to perform subtraction and measure the distance between 2 numbers is just one way it could be done. There are a infinity of alternative ways to describe the distance between numbers than the way we usually use and they are just as logically self-consistent, but as distance plays a key role in both space and time it follows that only one of those infinity of ways is consistent with physical reality. Physics gives us the only thing that is unique about it, but because we live and think in a physical world the way to measure distance was so intuitively obvious that we didn’t even suspect there were other ways until a century ago. *> Non standard model of arithmetic are also consistent with the laws of > physics.* > So on a football field if the 2 yard line was closer to the 28814 yard line than the 2 yard line was to the 3 yard line the game would not in anyway be changed? I don’t think so, in the physical world its harder to go from 2 to 28814 than 2 to 3, but in Plato’s heaven of pure numbers one is as easy as another. And that’s why p-adic numbers are not taught in the second grade. > >> >> You can not point to one single example of a non-physical computation. >> Not one. > > >** > *Here is one:* > *s(0) +s(0)* > *s(s(0) + 0)* > *s(s(0))* > > *Here is another one:* > > *SB(S(K(SM))K)AB* > *Bx((S(K(SM)K)A)B* > *A(S(K(SM))KAB)* > *A(K(SM)A(KA)B)* > *A(SM(KA)B)* > *A(MB)(KAB)* > *A(BBA)* > I just asked both of your examples of ASCII sequences to add 1+1 but I haven't heard even a incorrect answer from either, so far all I hear is a deafening silence but if I ever do hear anything from either of them I shall inform Intel immediately. >> >> It's so ubiquitous there is no choice but to assume matter, otherwise you >> couldn't read a book because that is made of matter, you couldn't even >> think because your brain is made of matter. > > > > > Nobody doubt Matter. But that does not make it primary, which is the > debated point. > So you concede that primary or not matter is needed to think. >> >> Heaven is not made of matter and neither is the Luminiferous Aether but >> our physical world is indifferent to the existence or non-existence of >> them, in other words physics can't prove they don't exist but it can prove >> the idea is silly. > > > > *>Physics is not concerned with fundamental existence. Metaphysics is.* > Can you name one advancement that Metaphysics has made in the last thousand years to world knowledge? I can't. > *>Confusing physics and metaphysics is the “error" of Aristotle, > which.....* > Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks, Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks..... > > >> >> >> * * >> *He is uncertain about where he will find itself after the duplication.* >> > > >> > That would be true if the man were like you and didn't understand what the > words "YOU WILL BE DUPLICATED" mean. > > > >** > *But the guy has bet on comp,* > I don't know or care what the guy expects to happen or or if he bets on "comp” or not, whatever the hell “comp" means. > >* * > *and so he knows that once duplicated, the two copies will feel to be > unique,* > *NO*!! They will feel unique ONLY if they see something different, like a different city , because after that they will no longer be PHYSICALLY identical. > >>If that's what "the guy" means then obviously "the guy" will see 2 >> cities. > > > *>At no moment at all this could occur for all persons concerned,* > It could if "the guy" means all persons concerned. So for the fourth time I repeat my request, give me a precise unambiguous definition of "the guy". I’m not as big a fan of definitions as you are and yet I can do it, so why can't you? > > > unless you add telepathy > *To hell with idiot telepathy!!! * > > ** > *you have to remember that the question is not about where the guy* > Until you make clear what "the guy" means there is no question much less an answer, there is just a sequence of words with a question mark at the end. *>Not at all. By definition of Computationalism, the H-guy survives in > the two cities.* > The truth or falsehood of Computationalism has nothing to do with it and the only definition that matters is the one you just gave. You said "the H-guy" has the property of existing "before the duplication", obviously after the duplication nobody has the property of existing before the duplication and if that's what you mean nobody survives. I think your definition of "the G-guy" is pretty silly but its the one you gave. By my definition of the H-guy he does survive. > > > You talk like if the H-guy died in the process, > He's dead as a door nail if that's what "the H-guy" means. It's certainly not what I mean. > > > but we have both agreed that he survives the duplication. > I never agreed that the H-guy means the guy before the duplication. I said the "H-guy" is anybody who remembers being in Helsinki before the duplication, and the people that have that defining characteristic end up seeing 2 cities not one. * >Of course he remembers, that is why we can say he survived.* Remembers? Memory was not involved in any way in your original definition of "the H-guy", so try again and this time as make it precise as my definition. 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.
