On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:24 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> *> The notion of model “modelises” the notion of reality.* > I see. No I take that back I don't see. What does that mean, how would thing s look different if it were the other way around, what if the notion of reality realizes the notion of model? > >> that is like using English to talk about the English word "cat". >> Whenever mathematics tries to model something that is not itself, like >> something physical, > > > > *> Which might be part of mathematics. * > If so you could make a calculation without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics and you would be the richest man who ever lived. > > Unless you assume [...] > What I assume is you are *NOT* the richest man who ever lived. > >> But, I hear you say, the numbers 11 and 13 are prime and that fact is >> unchanging and eternal! Well yes, but the English words "cat" and "bat" >> rhyme and that fact is also unchanging and eternal. > > > *> Not in the same sense, and if you make things precise, for mechanism, a > theory with bat and cat rhyming can be Turing universal,* > If both English and mathematics are Turing universal then both are just languages and everything mathematics can do English can do, although perhaps a little less eloquently . >> Mathematics can't even identify all true sentences about arithmetic much >> less become the master of physical reality. We know the sentence "the 4th >> Busy Beaver number is 107" belongs in the set of true sentences, but what >> about "the 5th Busy Beaver number is 47,176,870"? It's either true or its >> not but will you or I anybody or anything ever know which one? Nobody >> knows and nobody knows if we'll ever know, but we do know that nothing will >> ever know what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is even though its well >> defined and finite. >> > > *> You make my point. The value of the busy beaver function is > arithmetical well defined, but not computable, which illustrates that the > arithmetical reality kicks back,* > Arithmetical reality "kicked back" by saying "I can NOT identify all true sentences in arithmetic", and many many centuries before Godel or Turing Arithmetical reality "kicked back" by saying "I can only predict approximately what a physical system will do" and with the more recent development of Quantum Mechanics the approximations have become even more approximate. And that is exactly what you'd expect to happen if mathematics was the model and physics was the real thing because models are always simpler and less complete than the thing they're modeling. > *your argument needs your ontological commitment in some primary matter, > for which there is no evidence found yet.* You've been saying shit like that for years and I still have no idea what you're talking about. What exactly would you consider relevant evidence of the existence of "primary matter"? I don't think you even know what "primary matter" means. > 2+2=4 even if I was not born. > But there would be no way for anything to think about 2+2=4 without matter that obeys the laws of physics, there would be no way for that information to be encoded, and even if there were it would be meaningless if there were not at least 4 things in the physical universe. > You seem to confuse [...] > I'm not the one who is completely befuddled by personal pronouns. > > *You are only keeping Mouloud your personal materialist credo, * > That word is a bit too covfefe for my taste. > > 2+2=4 is a description in the language of mathematics about how some >> physical properties behave. For example, the mass of 2 protons and the mass >> 2 more protons equals the mass of 4 protons. But 2+2=4 doesn't work for >> everything, the temperature of 2 hot water bottles and 2 hot water bottles >> does not equal the temperature of 4 hot water bottles. Temperature doesn't >> add up in the same way that mass does, a different description is needed to >> describe what's going on. >> > > *No problem. 2+2=4 should not be applied in all context, of course. * > And physics tells mathematics when 2+2=4 should be applied and when it should not be because physics is more fundamental. *> A definition of a computation is not a computation. But can be used to > show that all computation are done in the models of arithmetic.* > No computation can be shown to do anything without making use of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >> why in the world would you say the physics is modeling the mathematics >> when its obvious that the mathematics is trying, with limited success, to >> model the physics? > > > > No one says that physics model mathematics. > You still don't understand the significance of what Alan Turing did in 1936 *>Assuming Aristotle theology* [...] Yawn. *> With mechanism, physics is reducible to the theology of *[...] Sorry, I don't know what you said after this, I fell asleep. 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.