On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:44 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
*>In logic, a model is a reality. * > If so then "reality" is a very silly thing and logicians are very silly people. *> A reality is anything which satisfies a theory* > And that is a very silly thing to say. Harry Potter flying on a broom satisfies the theory that Harry Potter is a wizard therefore Harry Potter flying on a broom is a reality. *> By definition of computations, all computations are done without primary > matter. * > And there we have those magical words again "by definition" . You should just say that "correct" means what Bruno Marchal says and therefore all your ideas are "correct" by definition. Definitions do not change reality and you're never going to discover anything new just by making definitions. > *> The appearance of matter is explained by the way some computations are > seen from inside. * > Computations don't seem like anything from the inside or the outside if they don't exist, and without matter that obeys the laws of physics they don't; and even the magical incantation "by definition" can't change that fact. > *If you believe in some primary, non deductible matter and that such > primary matter has a role for consciousness,* > We've observed experimentally that a change in matter changes consciousness and a change in consciousness changes matter, I don't see how you could get better evidence than that indicating matter and consciousness are related. > > *it is up to you to explain how * > It is not necessary to explain how if you can prove that it does. In science if someone makes a experimental discovery they are not also required to explain why things are that way, if they can that would be great but it's not required. In 1998 astronomers discovered that the universe was accelerating, they had no idea why it is doing that and we still don't, but the astronomers received the Nobel for their discovery anyway. When somebody discovers why its accelerating I have no doubt another Nobel Prize will be produced. > *that matter can select computation(s) in arithmetic.* Turing showed that matter can make any computation that can be composted, what more do you need. > * either **A) that matter role is not Turing emulable, but then > mechanism is false. Or,* You've got it backwards. Again. Turing proved that matter can do mathematics he did NOT prove that mathematics can do matter, and as far back as Newton we knew that mathematics can not solve the 3 body problem exactly and it can't even get arbitrarily close to the correct solution. So if you want to know what 3 objects of equal mass in orbit around each other will do all you can do is watch it and see. If there are a million objects in orbit you can make a pretty good approximation about what the entire swarm will do but not what any individual object will do. And with quantum physics it has become even more apparent that probabilities are the best that mathematics can do when it tries to emulate physics. *> Neither English nor mathematics are defined precisely enough to assert > that there are Turing universal.* > Neither Mathematics or English or any other language will ever be Turing universal, but matter is not a language and we've known since 1936 that it is Turing universal. > *> Gödel’s theorem says nothing about the physical,* > True, but Turing has a great deal to say about the physical, he said everything can be translated into something physical and in fact the physical is all he talked about. Historically Godel's theorem came a few years before Turing's but it could have easily been the other way around. Turing's results are far more general than Godel's, in 1936 Turing of course knew of Godel's work in 1931 but it didn't help him much, but if he had never been born Turing could have proven Godel's results as a corollary that was vastly simpler than the method Godel originallyly used to prove it. Suppose we had a consistent and complete logical system which was powerful enough to do arithmetic. Now if we have any Turing machine, we can figure out if it halts on any given input tape. Because the logical system is consistent and complete there must be a proof of finite size that it will halt or a proof that it will not, so all we'd have to do is go through them one by one till we found it; it would only take a finite amount of time and when and we've found the proof or disproof we've solved the Halting Problem . But it you already know that the Halting Problem can't be solved (which in 1936 Turing did know) then you'd know that a logical system that was consistent and complete and powerful enough to do arithmetic could not exist. > *> If you read the whole paper (sane04), * > Reading the entire paper is not necessary, one does not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad. > *> you can have the gist of it, even if you have some doubt on some steps, > on which we can come back.* > I will not read another word of it until you fix the blunder in step 3, and I don't think you ever will. >>Without matter there would be no way for that information to be encoded, > > > > *> x encodes phi_x in arithmetic through the Kleene’s predicate T(x, y, > z). * > Mr. Kleene was made of matter and he wrote "T(x, y, z)" in ink which was also made of matter. > *> You cannot know by pure introspection if you are in a brain in a vat, > or a brain in arithmetic.* > But you claim to have done precisely that, you claim that everything, and not just brains, at the deepest level is just arithmetic. > *when doing metaphysics with the scientific method* [...] > As I said before, if you're doing metaphysics with the scientific method then its not metaphysics, it's just physics. What you're doing is definitely metaphysics, I prefer physics. > > Are you able to doubt the ontological existence of a physical universe? > Depends on what you mean. I would say a physical universe is a place with the capacity to build a working Turing Machine, even if we're living in a computer simulation I have no doubt such a place exists. 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.
