On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>If physics is not involved then neither is time or space, so nothing >> about the "machine" changes, and without change a calculation can not be >> made. > > > *>See my answer in previous post.* > In my experience reading your stuff twice brings no additional clarity. *>you cannot invoke your personal metaphysics.* > If a mechanic can't fix the engine in his car without "invoking personal metaphysics" then there is nothing metaphysical about it. It's just physical. > >if you assume Aristotle’s [.....] > How very interesting! I believe this is the first time you've ever mentioned the ancient Greeks, why didn't you do that before? > *I use “exists” as a quantifier in some theory. The axioms are given in > all textbook of logic.* > Assuming logic textbooks exist did anything exist before logic textbooks existed ? And if logic is more fundamental why is it that a physical machine can simulate logic but logic can't simulate a physical machine? >>Maybe there is some way other than a Turing Machine to perform a >> calculation, > > > *>That is ambiguous.* > Maybe a Turing Machine can't find the answer to all nondeterministic polynomial time problems in polynomial time but some other physical method can, I doubt it but maybe. It's probably the greatest unsolved problem in mathematics. Does P=NP? Most think the answer is no but nobody can prove it. Intuitively you'd think in general it must be harder to write a book than read a book and harder to write a proof than check a proof, but then again these days it sometimes takes the entire mathematical community years to check a proof before they conclude its valid so maybe not. > >>but whatever that way is you can be certain it involves change, and >> that means its physical. > > > >*No. We need only the local change* > If you're talking about locality then you're implicitly assuming the existence of time and space, and they are physical concepts. > *> in the memory of the machine.* > Memory is physical. It turns out that theoretically you can perform a calculation without using energy but If you don't have a infinite memory then at some point you're going to have to erase the scratchpad stuff you used to make the calculation. And in 1961 Landauer proved it takes a minimum amount of energy to erase one bit of information and he told us exactly how much that is; its Boltzmann's constant times the temperature of the memory in degrees Kelvin times the natural logarithm of 2. Landauer's results are rooted in the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and if I could pick one thing that I think physicists would still consider to be true a thousand years from now it would be the second law. Landauer's limit on the minimum it takes to erase one bit of information is a very small amount of energy (.0172 electron volts) but if the amount of space needed to store one bit of information keeps shrinking then in 10 or 15 years computer engineers are going have to take it into consideration. Some early designs for nanocomputers ignored it and thus if they had been built they would have given off so much heat they would have acted more like bombs than computers. But you can mitigate the number of bits you need to erase by computing the scratchpad memory backwards (if you have a reversable computer) and restoring it to its original state without erasing any information or using any energy. Nobody has bothered to make a reversible computer because computers are still so big Landauer's limit is not a significant engineering consideration, but someday it will be. > *>Usually computational changes is defined by finite sequence,* > Finite sequences never change. > > they are defined by [...] > Bruno, you can't define your way to the truth or toward reality. >>nobody but you knows what the hell "the God of Physicalism or Primary >> Matter” means > > > > *It means a notion of matter that we assume to be obtained only by > assumption. It is called sometimes “the second God of Aristotle”.* > After all these years why did you wait till now to refer to God or the ancient Greeks? That did it that convinced me, anybody who can do that must be right. If only you'd done it years ago! >>>*You did.* > > >>Ahhhh.... yet more goddamn personal pronouns! Well OK maybe so, maybe > Mr.You knows what Bruno means by "You" in a world that contains "you" > duplicating machines, but John certainly does not. > > *>We can see that, but that contradict the fact that you agree*[...] > I think the H-guy survived but I do NOT agree that we agree! Maybe we agree maybe we don't, I have no idea.because nobody including you knows what you mean by "the H-guy". > > [...] *the H-guy survived the duplication.* > I know exactly what I mean whenever I write "the H-guy" and my meaning has remained constant from day one of this endless debate, but if you have any meaning at all for the term it changes in every other sentence. > > 1*4 years old kid got this.* > I don't doubt it, and if 14 year old kids edited Nature or Science you could get your ideas published there, but most 14 year old kids are not very good at critical thinking, although some are better at it than a logician I know. > *From the 3p perspective they are duplicated, but from the 1p > perspective, the situation is not symmetric/ One feel to be in W and the > other feel to be in Moscow.* > And every bit of that the was predicted by The Helsinki Man. The Moscow and Washington men didn't predict it because yesterday back in Helsinki they did not exist. > >>the instant the doors were opened and they saw different things, that >> 2 minds emerge where only 1 was before. > > > Yes, and each mind feel unique, and so the question in Helsinki was about > predicting the chance to be which one. > The chance of WHO becoming which one??? And before answering that question with some personal pronoun with no clear referent or just saying "The Helsinki Man" I want to know precisely what you mean by the term. I've told you exactly what I mean now it's your turn. I want a definition as good as my own so that at any point before or after the duplication if I ask "Did the Helsinki man do see hear or think X?" you can answer with a simple yes or no and not come back with a blizzard of qualifications, homemade jargon, acronyms, and weasel words. If you can't do that then you haven't defined it properly, and because you haven't provided good examples either I don't know what you mean by "the Helsinki man". 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
