On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:53 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>All I ask you to do is follow the scientific method. > > > *> I do, which is not so frequent in theology* > The scientific method in theology? You must be kidding. > *You are the one invoking your ontological commitment when defining real > by “physically real”* > I'm not defining anything in fact I'm asking you to stop defining stuff for one second and instead show me a example, show me a WORKING Turing Machine that doesn't make use of the laws of physics so that I can observe it making a calculation. You insist such a thing exists so put up or shut up. > > *and then asking me the impossible task to transform a computation > realised in arithmetic into a computation realised in the physical reality.* > If it's impossible for arithmetic to do that, and I agree with you it is, then physical reality can do something arithmetic can't. > >> the multiverse as a collection of all real universes and a real >> universe is one capable of producing a working Turing Machine. > > > *All terms are used in too fuzzy way here.* > So says the man that can't use personal pronouns without tying himself into logical knots and contradictions. > > *The arithmetical reality produces all working machines* > I don't believe you. Prove me wrong by producing a working machine that doesn't use matter or physics. And by "working" I mean one that changes in time or space or both. You can claim all you want you've proven there are a thousand angels dancing on the head of a pin by redefining the words "angles" and "dancing" and "pin" but I won't be interested until you show me many very small spiritual beings moving to the rhythm of music on a dance floor of less than one square millimeter in area. > > *You can’t use work like "real” when doing metaphysics with the > scientific method.* > There is no such thing as metaphysics with the scientific method >> there is no better way to prove that something exists than to produce >> it. > > > > *I guess you mean to produce it physically,* > You can produce it anyway you like provided its observable. I want to observe a working Turing Machine that is not made of matter and does not make use of the laws of physics. You just said that pure arithmetic can do exactly that, so stop talking about it and SHOW ME. > > *the criteria of meta^hysical reality due to Aristotle* [...] > Don't you ever get tired of dead Greeks? > > *No problem, but then you need to abandon mechanism, or to explain us > what in “real matter” * > I already told you that matter, or anything else, is real if you can make a working Turing Machine out of it. > > *is both Turing emulable (as it should with mechanism), yet not > emulated in arithmetic, which would violate Turing completeness of > arithmetic,* > You've got it exactly backwards yet again. Turing proved matter can calculate anything that can be calculated but he did not prove that arithmetic can. That's why it's easy for me to show you matter doing arithmetic but you have to rack your brains dreaming up excuses why you can't show me arithmetic doing matter, in fact you can't even show me arithmetic doing arithmetic. > *It is a standard theorem in all mathematical textbook that Robison > arithmetic is Turing complete.* > And when you tell that mathematical textbook to calculate 2+2 what happens? > >> 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 repeat this again, * > And I'd need scientific notation to count how many times you've called me religious or dug up some Greek who's been dead for 2500 years as your ultimate authority. You stop your repetition and I'll stop mine. >>> *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? > > > > *No of course.* > Then you can't use Godel numbering to encode information without matter and the laws of physics. > > *The point is that infinitely many of those calculations are realised > in virtue of true relations of the type 2+2=4.* > > *You are the one saying that computationalism is true, but that only a > special universal number counts.* > There is no special relationship between that Godel number and 4 and 5, there are a infinite number of ways 4 and 5 can be manipulated to get another larger number, Godel just picked one of them > *>>>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, > > > >*If the here and now will not exist in the here and then, * > There is no "if" about it! The here and now will not exist in the there and then, that's why different words are used. > *then you die,* > I have no idea if that's true or not because I don't know who in hell Mr. You is suposed to be. > *but you agreed that you survive,* > Then why did Bruno define "you" as the guy in the "here and now in Helsinki"??? And I'm suposed to be the one lacking rigour? > > *admit that their now personal experiences could not have been > predicted when “he” was in Helsinki,* > If "he" is defined as the guy that was in Helsinki on Thursday (as you do) then "he" could have predicted that on Friday "he" will see no city or anything else as "he" will no longer exist because on Friday there is nobody in Helsinki on Thursday. If however "he" means somebody who remembers being in Helsinki on Thursday (as I do) then "he" will see 2 cities on Friday. No doubt you will now complain I'm using too much rigour and personal pronouns should be used in the regular everyday way even though a personal pronoun duplicating machine is in use. > > *You need to study Gödel’s 1931 paper.* > I don't see a particle of evidence you have a deeper understanding of these matters than I do as your last few responses show. > You need to study the arithmetization of metamathematics. > Godel couldn't have done any arithmetization on metamathematics or on anything else without a brain that operated according to the laws of physics. > > *coming back to Plato and* [...] > Oh please have mercy, don't come back to Plato. > >> 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. > > > *> On the contrary, consciousness, as you have often said, is much simpler > than intelligence (in your competence sense). * > That's exactly the problem, consciousness is so simple any theory about it will work just fine because there are no facts that such a theory needs to fit. Scientific theories are speculation in a straightjacket, but this is just speculation and thus one theory is as good as another. > *But simpler does not meant trivial.* > Simple can also mean stupid. > Competence has almost nothing to do with consciousness, > Then random mutation and natural selection could never have produced consciousness, but I know for a fact it did at least once and possibly many billions of times. Therefore you are wrong. QED. > *you ask how, not only a person is related to some computation, but why > such a person has a theology [...]* > I never asked anything about theology because I'm not interested in crap. > *The 3-body problem is Turing complete, although not in a practical way. > Yet, it means that you can simulate a quantum computer, or an entire > galaxy, just by using three bodies and Newton’s law.* > You'd need to know the position and velocity of those 3 bodies with infinite precision and you'd need to perform an infinite number of calculations on them, something like that is more than just impractical, it's not computable. However by using a finite number of calculations you can make a pretty good approximation of a entire galaxy with Newton's laws, you can predict what the general shape of the galaxy will be but not what any individual star in it will do. > *Matter has not been proved Turing complete; but some sub theory of > physics are Turing complete, like the billiard-variant, and of course > electronic. * > Huh? If billiard balls and electrons are Turing complete then so is matter because billiard balls and electrons are matter and they obey the laws of physics. > >>People can get sloppy in their language and 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. > > > *> That is revisionism. You impose your metaphysical opinion to others. * > Prove me wrong, show me how Conway's rules change, show me how Life can compute or DO anything at all without matter and the laws of physics. > > *The game of life is Turing Complete *is* an arithmetical truth, and > indeed even provable by PA.* > Yes its provable, and being a logician you yourself might even be able to do so, but when you finished you wouldn't understand exactly what it is that you just proved. > *To say that something is real because it is physical* > No, something is real if it can produce a working Turing Machine. > is like saying something is real because my God has decided. > And if you can show me that God can produce a working Turing Machine then even I, a lifelong atheist, would be forced to admit that God is real (unless declared an integer). *> if you were sincerely unable to doubt the Second God of Aristotle [...]* > Ahhhhhhhh, I am sick of Greeks! > > I think we have already shown more than one time that your use leads to 1 > = 2, that is 0 = 1. > *BULLSHIT!* >>The stuff you're correct about is not original and the stuff that's >> original is not correct. > > > > *You seem to repeat a common slogan. Good. Usually this is not done > publicly. * > *Do you get money for this?* > Oh yes, you are so brilliant "they" are jealous and I am payed fabulous amounts of money by "them" to try to discredit you, in fact I am writing these words on my private jet. > You are Catholic. > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > *That is what I called the Aristotelian Theology.* > That is what I call crap, just like all of theology not just those of dead Greeks. > > *The first “God” of Aristotle is* [...] > ..... Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks .... > > *The second God of Aristotle is* [...] > I don't care if the second God of Aristotle is Fuckface Von Clownstick. > > which departs a lot from Plato’s [...] > It never ends, it never ends, the Greeks never end. *Assuming Aristotle second God* [...] > It never ends, it never ends, It never ends, it never ends It never ends ..... John K Clatk -- 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.
