Le sam. 24 nov. 2018 17:28, John Clark <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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. > Strangely you're not as hard with yourself when you advertise manyworld... Just show us a parallel universe then... Until you apply to your own beliefs your own methods, It will just be dismissive BS. 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. > -- 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.
