On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:27 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> I see precisely ZERO evidence that "phi_u(x, y)" can emulate a machine >> or emulate anything a or in fact do anything at all because "phi_u(x, y)" >> never changes, not in time and not in space. You wrote "phi_u(x, y)" in >> the above about 11 hours ago thousands of miles from me, but here I am >> looking at "phi_u(x, y)" and "phi_u(x, y)" is still just "phi_u(x, y)” . > > *> Your confusion here* > I'm not the one that's totally confused by personal pronouns. > * > is equivalent with confusing a far away galaxy with the telescope, or > confusing a physical universe with a book on the physical universe.* > You are also confused about what is modeling what. A galaxy is more complex than a telescope, and the universe is more complex than a book, and a physical system is ALWAYS more complex than the mathematical model that's trying to simulate it, and that's why the mathematical model NEVER does a perfect job. Models are ALWAYS simpler than the thing being modeled. A mathematical model of a hurricane needs to conform with the real thing to be any good but the physical hurricane doesn't need to conform with the model or with anything else except for the laws of physics. Physics tells mathematics what to do not the other way around because physics is more fundamental . > > *A model is complete by definition:* > Hogwarts is a school of magic BY DEFINITION. And for you "by definition" = "abracadabra". > if you are OK that 2+2=4 I am. > *and similar are true independently of you and me, * Its independent of you or me but it is NOT independent of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > *computations and their many realisation all exists, in a provable way, * If so then INTEL has been wasting colossal amounts of money over the last 40 years messing around with silicon, you have the power to put them out of business and become the richest man who ever lived. What are you waiting for? > *in a provable way,* What exactly have you proven to exist? A mathematical proof that's all, and a mathematical proof can't change in space or time so it can't compute anything. >>> *A model is a model of a theory.* >> >> >>So I guess a model of a theory is a model of a model of a theory, and a >> model of a model of a theory is a model of a model of a model of a >> theory, and a model of…. > > > *> You might decide one day to study a bit of mathematical logic.* > If you studied a bit of information theory you'd know that "a model is a model" has zero informational content > > *The notion of model applies to a theory, only, or to a machine,* > According to you the notion of a model also applies to a model. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.