On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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.

Reply via email to