On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *Facts provide finite amount of information, * > Yes, but most theories provide no information at all because most theories are worthless. Its rather incredible, this list has become so effete and unscientific that I actually have to argue in favor of the existence and value of facts. > *>where most theories extrapolate them to an infinity of proposition.* > And for most theories nearly all of those infinity of proposition are dead WRONG. *>even the books or papers on physical computations define them by > “physical implementation of the usual standard mathematical notion.* > Books and papers may be able to define a computation but they can not perform a computation, and all books are written in some language, the way physics works is best described in the language of mathematics, computation is physical so a book about computation is best written in the language of mathematics. I asked you to provide a definition of a physical computation which do not > borrow the mathematical notion (that you can find in basically all papers > which found the subject, like in Davis “The Undecidable”), but you didn’t > answer. > I don't recall you asking me that, I may have inadvertently skipped too when you started droning on about physics being theology; but I will answer it now. Physical computation is computation done by exploiting thy ways matter obeys the laws of physics, and the term is redundant because physical computation is the only type of computation ever observed and the only type of computation hypothesized. Stating that non-physical computations exist without any evidence or even the slightest hint about how it might work is not a hypothesis, its just a belief. *>You continue to use Aristotle* > * [blah blah blah*] > Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, [...] > >> >> nobody has ever proposed a mechanism about how it could work, not even a >> implausible one. > > > *Just tell me how a universal Turing machine could distinguish an > arithmetical reality from a physical one.* > A Turing Machine can't do something with the tape or with the read/write head if the laws of physics do not allow it, and the sheep herder who invented arithmetic 10,000 years ago made sure it conformed with physical reality, so a physical Turing Machine can't tell if it is operating with a read/write head and tape made of matter or if it is being simulated by another Turing Machine that is. One thing is certain however, somewhere down the line matter and physics are involved > *> Or explain what is the primitive matter* You want me to explain "primitive matter"?? You're the one who keeps talking about it and you're the one who demonstrated you don't know what philosophers mean when they use the tern > > > and how it selects the "conscious computations”. > Turing and Darwin showed how matter that obeys the laws of physics can produce intelligence, neither you nor anybody else has ever provided even a clue as to how pure numbers or anything else non-physical could do the same thing. As for consciousness, it's the way data feels when it is being processed; I'll go into more detail about how atoms manage to do this as soon as you explain how the integer "6" can. >> >> >> The fundamental problem is that no non-physical thing can change itself >> or another non-physical thing, it can't DO anything. > > *>Of course it can. “Doing” is a relative notion.* > A physical object can change its position *relative* to another physical object, for example the distance between the read/write head of a Turing machine and particular box on the tape. and that ability enables it to make computations, but the distance between the integer 6 and the integer 4 never changes, and that's why they can't make computations. Computation needs something to change and non-physical things don't change. *>Well. I begin to suspect that you are a sort of priest,* > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > *Anyone mocking Theology is a convinced Aristotelian* > [blah blah blah] > Mr. Bruno One Note! Nothing but wall to wall Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks [...] > * >theologian. You believe in the God “matter”. In science,* > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. 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.
