> On 13 Jul 2018, at 03:01, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[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,
It does not. I mean, not formally. That is impossible as the physical reality is (at least) Turing complete. > but because we live and think in a physical world OK. But that does not make it primary. > the way to measure distance was so intuitively obvious that we didn’t even > suspect there were other ways until a century ago. Either your p-adic system is Turing universal, and then you can take it as the primary theory, or it is not. Theology, including physics, is independent of the choice of the primitive element or theory. > > > 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. I was talking of non standard theory of the natural number. > > >>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. Too late. Intel exist because they were aware of this. The physical computer is born from the physical implementation of the non physical computer discovered by the mathematicians. > > > >>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. For humans, when alive. Yes. In fact, all universal machine are confronted to matter appearances, and that can be proved in arithmetic. > > >>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? > > The very existence of physics, mathematics, comes from metaphysical questioning. Unfortunately, we have chosen the simplest, but wrong, metaphysical assumption. Doing metaphysics with the scientific attitude just means being able to see when something is wrong, and to make the change. > 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….. They have discovered the whole science. But the christians, and the “strong atheists” deny the evidence, like always with the pseudo-religious people. >> >>> 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 > But that is the question we were studying. That is *the* point of the “step 3”. You betray you just want not do the work. > 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!! > Ah! I knew you were caring. But you contradict yourself. > They will feel unique ONLY if they see something different, like a different > city , > Which is the case in “step 3”. So …. > because after that they will no longer be PHYSICALLY identical. > > No, but that is not important as we have agreed that both are fully aware of their common identity with the H-guy. I am not physically identical with my “yesterday” self either. Personal identity is not in the physical body once we assume comp (= indexical computationalism, the belief that we can survive with a digital body). > >>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. > That would be the guys, not each one we need to interview to get confirmation or refutation of the prediction on its first person experience. > So for the fourth time I repeat my request, give me a precise unambiguous > definition of "the guy”. > Anyone ready for the WM-duplication in Helsinki. You can use a sufficiently sophisticated robot if you want. But the question is about what they expect to write in their personal diary/memory after they will open the reconstitution box. So we have to keep the 1p and 3p nuances to avoid the ambiguity. > 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”, Before, after, all the times, in this experiment. By comp, we have agreed that The H-guy will not died, in any way, in that experience. > obviously after the duplication nobody has the property of existing before > the duplication That contradicts your statement that we survive teleportation and duplication when we assume computationalism. > and if that's what you mean nobody survives. I think your definition of "the > G-guy” The Lôbian machine? OK. > is pretty silly but its the one you gave. By my definition of the H-guy he > does survive. Which makes my point (and the G-guy points too). > > > 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. That makes no sense. Also, the H-guy is the guy before the duplication, but also after. The H-guy survives in both W and M, but only in one of them from its personal point of view, obviously. > 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. No, they both end up seeing one city, and writing either W or M, but not both, in their personal diary. You say “the hell with the telepathy”, but you are the one introducing it implicitly all the time. Of course now, you will say “the hell with the diaries” …. > > > >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”, I think you play with words. Bruno > 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] > <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.
