On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>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.
>>
>
> *> You ask me to implement those computation in the physical reality. *
>

All I ask you to do is follow the scientific method.


> *> That has nothing to do with the fact that all computations are
> implemented in the “block-univers”, or better “block-mindscape” associate
> to arithmetic.*
>

All that is just a fancy way of saying you don't need no stinking
scientific method. You like definitions so I will give you two, the
multiverse as a collection of all real universes and a real universe is one
capable of producing a working Turing Machine.  And there is no better way
to prove that something exists than to produce it. Neither you or Mr.Kleene
or Mr.Robinson or anybody else has ever shown that a working Turing Machine
can be produced without using matter that obeys the laws of physics and
they haven't even come close to doing so.

*> That is the usual interest form of pseudo-regions behaviour.*
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


> *> my “outlandish” statements are just part of any course in computer
> science. *
>

BULLSHIT!  Try peddling your ideas in Silicon Valley, talk to a venture
capitalist about funding it, You'd be laughed out if town!

*> I have been asked both in Brussels and Lille to withdraw those
> explanations as it was judged to be well known.*
>

The stuff you're correct about is not original and the stuff that's
original is not correct.


> > *You are not criticising me, you are criticising the whole of computer
> science.*
>

Tell that to the Billionaires in Silicon Valley, they'll cry all the way to
the bank.

>> 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.
>
>
> > *The number (2^4)*(3^5) typically encodes the list (4, 5),*
>

Do you know of a way that large Godel number can be un-encoded to get back
the 4 and 5 without doing any calculations? If not then you must know of a
way to make calculations without matter that obeys the laws of physics. You
should tell the Silicon Valley  people immediately.
Just kidding, save yourself the humiliation.


> > *In metaphysics, when done seriously with the scientific attitude,*
>

Metaphysics with the scientific attitude is a contradiction in terms, like
jumbo shrimp or brilliant stupidity.

> *How can you lack so much sense of rigour.*
>

At least I'm rigorous enough to know who the referent is when I use
personal pronouns. You should try it sometime.


> *>The FPI is that you are maximally ignorant of the future experience that
> you (the you here and now in Helsinki, say) will *live* after pus-hing on
> the button.*
>

If that is how the personal pronoun "you" is defined then "you" will not
live in the future regardless of if the button is pushed or not because the
here and now will not exist in the there and then, and so "you" won't
either. If that is what the word means then "you" has died a billion time a
second since birth. And I'm suposed to be the one lacking rigour? You
can't even
keep simple personal pronouns straight!!

> *So, how could a universal machine distinguish a reality emulated by a
> program emulated in arithmetic, and a program emulated by your god?*
>

How could God or any intelligent entity know what the hell you're talking
about?


> *>What in “matter” plays the role of not being able to be emulated in
> arithmetic.*
>

Intelligence needs change. Matter can change in both time and space.
Arithmetic can change in neither.


> >>To hell with consciousness!
>
>
> *> That its Dennett, or Churchland conclusion. Let us just deny
> consciousness.*
>

I don't deny consciousness I'm just tired of hearing about it if nobody has
anything interesting to say. First things first, before you have even a
hope of understanding consciousness you're going to have to understand how
intelligence works, until then you're just wasting time spinning your
wheels.


> >>Turing explained how matter can behave intelligently,
>
>
> *>No. *
>

No? *NO!* Are you joking? Are you serious?

> *He showed how a person can be attached to a computation,*
>

I have no idea what you mean. Do you?


> > *and also that physics is Turing complete,*
>

If something is Turing Complete then it is capable of behaving
intelligently and matter that obeys the laws of physics is the only thing
that has been proven to be Turing Complete. People can get sloppy in their
language snd say things like "Conway's Game of Life is Turing Complete" but
what they really mean  is when a computer made of matter that obeys the
laws of physics is programed with Conway's rules it is theoretically
capable of computing anything that can be computed. But Conway's rules
never change and so by themselves can't DO anything.


> > *so that we can use matter to implement computations, like nature
> plausibly does. But it is not matter which behave intelligently: it is the
> person associated to the computation,*
>

There may not be a person involved, the computer might be programed by
another computer, and even if there is a person is made of matter.


> >*You use of matter is “magical”.*
>

I'm not sure what you mean by “magical”, if you mean the brute fact that
terminates a chain of "why?" questions than I agree magic exists.


> > *Matter can be sued to implement computations relatively to us, but
> that does not contradict that matter is an emerging phenomenological patter
> arising from the number relations,*
>

Arithmetic says that 2+2=4 for one and only one reason, because 2 matter
particles and 2  more matter particles behave like 4 matter particles.
That's why a simple mechanical calculator can do arithmetic but arithmetic
can't do a simple mechanical calculator.


> > *that is your religious dogma,*
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


> > *and no facts confirms it.*
>

No facts except for all those discovered with the scientific method.

> *You ask me question which are fully addressed in my papers, but you are
> stuck in the step 3, as you know.*
>

I'm not stuck, you're the one that doesn't know how to fix the blunder in
step 3.

*> You confuse* [...]
>

I'm the one completely befuddled by personal pronouns.


> > *“T(x,y,z)” with T(x,y, z). *
>

And I'm not the one that thinks something has proven anything about T(x,y,
z) when all anybody can do is prove stuff about "T(x,y, z)". You've managed
to prove that the English word "CAT" has 3 letters and that makes you think
you've also proven "CAT" can have kittens.

>>Turing's 1936 paper showed how matter that obeys the laws of physics can
>> perform any computation that can be computed.
>
>
>
> *> Turing’s 1936 paper does not talk about “matter” at all.*
>

Turing talked about a tape and a read write head both of which MUST be made
of matter because both must change in time and space and matter is the only
known thing that can do that, arithmetic certainly can't.


> > *In the question we distinguish the 1p from the 3p, but you dismiss
> this systematically, by insult, hand waving, dismissive tone, etc. If you
> can make the prediction, illustrate its working in details.*
>

I can't make "the prediction" because I don't know who or what "the
prediction" is about.  All Bruno can do is rattle off personal pronouns at
a rapid fire machine gun rate as if there is a unique meaning to each one
even though the thought experiment involves a personal pronoun duplicating
machine. And then Bruno bizarrely asks me to pretend this blunder never
happened and go on to the next step! That's not going to happen.

>>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.
>
>
> *> Same as above. You ask me something impossible,*
>

I agree what I ask is impossible and it's impossible for exactly the same
reason that it's impossible for the English word "CAT" to have kittens.

*> Here you do the same as the creationist.*
>

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


> > *You negate facts to give some special magical role to your god,*
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


> *> You are using your religious dogma to prevent science.*
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

*> you cannot invoke your god (matter).*
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


> > *You take observation as the criteria of reality,*
>

It's called the scientific method, perhaps you've heard of it.


> > but that is exactly what mechanism makes invalid, as the dream argument
> showed already to Plato.
>

Yawn.


> *>That is the Aristotelian habit, only.*
>

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