On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *in a precise context, when doing science/mathematics, it is useful to > have precise mathematical definition.* > Sure definitions can be useful but they never cause things to pop into existence or can tell you anything about the nature of science or mathematics, all they tell you is what the sound some human beings make with their mouth or the squiggles they draw with their hands represent, something that may or may not be part of reality. *> You define computation through an ontological commitment.* > My commitment is with the scientific method, so when you make outlandish claims (*matter is not needed to make calculations Robison arithmetic alone can do so, Kleene’s predicate T(x, y, z) can encode information*) I ask you to actually do so. I don't ask you to tell me about it, anybody can spin a tale in the English language or the Mathematical language, I ask you to actually make a calculation or encode some information without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. I don't want more squiggles made of ink I want you to perform a experiment that can be repeated. I'm not being unreasonable in my request, I'm just asking you to be scientific. If you can successfully do all that I'll do a 180, my opinion of your work will change radically because I have no loyalty or sentimentality, if a idea doesn't work I reject it if it does work I embrace it until I find something that works even better. > > *That is not the standard way to proceed in this field,* > True, that's not the way things are done in the Junk Science field, Voodoo priests would not approve at all. >>Definitions do not change reality and you're never going to discover >> anything new just by making definitions. > > > > *Any formal or mathematical definition will do,* > Will do what? Change reality? *>That all computations are executed in arithmetic is just a standard fact > knows since 1931-1936. * > And it has also been know that arithmetic can only be performed by matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > *That simply cannot work, unless you are right about the non existence > of the first person indeterminacy, * > First person indeterminacy? Oh yes, the idea that you can't always be certain what will happen next. I believe that monumental discovery was made by the great thinker and philosopher Og The Caveman. > >>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. > > > *> In a video games, you can also have such relations,* > Yes, so what? *> them being processed in the physical reality, or in a brain in a vat, or > in arithmetic, the same effect can take place,* A brain in a vat is part of physical reality and so is a brain in a bone box atop your shoulders. And forget video games, arithmetic can't even calculate 2+2 anymore the English word "cat" can have kittens because a language by itself can't do anything. >>Turing showed that matter can make any computation that can be composted, >> what more do you need. > > *> Sure,* > I'm glad we agree on something. *> but we talk on primary matter, and it is this one that you have to > explain the role in consciousness,* > To hell with consciousness! Turing explained how matter can behave intelligently, and Darwin explained how natural selection and random mutation can produce an animal that behaves intelligently, and I know that I am conscious, and I know I am the product of Evolution. If consciousness is a brute fact, if consciousness is the inevitable byproduct of intelligence, as I think it must be, then there is nothing more of interest to be said about it, certainly nobody on this list has said anything of more significance about consciousness since I joined the list. >> You've got it backwards. Again. Turing proved that matter can do >> mathematics he did NOT prove that mathematics can do matter, > > > *> Yes, that is my result,* > If you agree with Turing that matter can do mathematics but mathematics can NOT do matter then you must also agree that physics is more fundamental than mathematics. > > in arithmetic there are infinitely any processes that we cannot predict > in advance. > True, but how in the world does that weakness support your claim that mathematics tells physics what to do and thus is at the foundation of reality when mathematics doesn't know what matter is going to do even though matter always ends up doing something? >> 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. > > > >*You insist confusing the language of mathematics and the object talked > about using that language.* > It was you not me that insisted Robison arithmetic alone can make calculations and "T(x, y, z)" can encode information. So who's really confused? >>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. > > > *>In its embryogenesis paper, or in its note on the quantum Zeno effect, > not in its paper on computations, which he made clear to be mathematical, > and later arithmetical.* > Turing's 1936 paper showed how matter that obeys the laws of physics can perform any computation that can be computed. Church also prove the Halting Problem had no solution but he did not show that matter that obeys the laws of physics can perform any computation that can be computed, and that's why Turing's work was greater than Church's. >>I will not read another word of it until you fix the blunder in step 3, >> and I don't think you ever will. > > > > *What error?* > Oh for christ sake! After 5+ years you say "what error?"! > *> Doing metaphysics with the scientific attitude consists in NOT deciding > the ontology at the start.* OK let's do metaphysics with a scientific attitude, we'll do an experiment. You claim you can encode information in "Kleene’s predicate T(x, y, z)" so upload some information into "Kleene’s predicate T(x, y, z)" and then, after you tell me how to do it because I have no idea, I will download that information from "Kleene’s predicate T(x, y, z)" and we can compare what you upload with what I downloaded and see if any of the information has been corrupted. We can then write a joint paper and publish our results in a peer reviewed journal. That would be the scientific method. *> why do you try to intervene in a discussion in metaphysics. This list is > not a physics list, but a list on the subject of how to unify everything, > which includes consciousness, god or not gods, etc. * > Not entirely, on occasion this list stops babbling crackpot mysticism and actually discusses some real science and mathematics, not often but it does happen. > >>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. > > > *> Amen. If you have no doubt, then there is nothing we can do.* > So you don't think a working Turing Machine can be built anywhere??? * > it is Aristotle theology* [...] Yawn. *>You assume Aristotle theology *[...] Sorry, I didn't hear what you said after that, 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 [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.
