> On 30 Nov 2018, at 20:52, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:53 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
> <mailto:[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.
It is very simple. Never claim to have the truth, and always present a theory
having verifiable consequences.
>
> > 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.
Well, assuming mechanism, you, and your laptop, are good examples, as there is
no physical reality which is primary at all in that case.
You assume a primary physical reality. I do not, and on the contrary show that
this idea is contradictory with the Mechanist theory.
> You insist such a thing exists so put up or shut up.
The existence is provable in Peano arithmetic. Read Gödel 1931.
>
> > 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.
Arithmetic makes you believe in a physical reality. The physical becomes
phenomenological.
You are the one doing an ontological commitment.
>
> >> 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.
Repeating a statement again and again does not make it valid. Just wait I
explain this to some other.
>
> > 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.
This is ambiguous. Either you ask me something contradictory at the start, like
creating primary matter from the numbers, or you ask me an example of a working
machine, relatively to a universal machine, in arithmetic. That is long to
show. See the proof by Gödel in 25 steps (in his 1931 paper).
> And by "working" I mean one that changes in time or space or both.
OK. Then your laptop is an excellent example.
> 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
People who says that theology or metaphysics cannot be done with the scientific
method are those who want impose their personal conviction to others.
Religion has been separated from science for one reason only: to make it into
an instrument of control of the others.
>
> >> 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.
We have to agree by what mean by observable. I gave a precise definition for
“observable with measure one”, and illustrated it in step 3 with the cup of
coffee offered to both reconstituted person. Eventually observable is defined
by being sigma_1, provable and consistent. That is enough to extract quantum
logic, and to begin an explanation of why observation can be persistent and
locally sharable between different universal machine.
I have no clue what you mean by observable, as you invoke your god-primary
matter, which makes no sense.
> I want to observe a working Turing Machine that is not made of matter and
> does not make use of the laws of physics.
{(q1 B 1 q1)}
> You just said that pure arithmetic can do exactly that, so stop talking about
> it and SHOW ME.
See my paper for the proof. But what you ask me to so is enough ambiguous, so
whatever I will show you, I know how you will criticized it, and it will be
invalid as you will invoke your god.
It is hard to convince believer.
>
> > the criteria of meta^hysical reality due to Aristotle [...]
>
> Don't you ever get tired of dead Greeks?
The big difference between two quite different conceptions of reality start
there: Aristotle (matter exists ontologically) and Plato (matter is a symptom
of a deeper non physical reality). Since 1500 years, we have been imposed the
god-matter. Now, thanks to both QM and Gödel-Turing discoveries, we know that
his cannot work, and so it is very reasonable to reread Plato and the
rationalist among the theologians.
>
> > 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.
“Working” is ambiguous. How could a universal machine distinguish a physically
working environment, and an arithmetically environment?
>
> > 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 is just wrong.
> That's why it's easy for me to show you matter doing arithmetic
You have never succeed in showing that, I mean with primary matter. With non
primary matter, arithmetic shows that already.
> 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.
I can show you arithmetic doing not only arithmetic, but even meta-arithmetic.
This is proved in all textbook of mathematical logic. You are just ignorant.
>
> > 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?
The same thing that happens when you call a textbook in physics to make a
pizza. Things does not work that way.
>
> >> 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.
But then you have to stop invoking your ontological commitment when doing
metaphysics. If not, I will keep pointing on that obvious mistake that you
repeat and repeat again. That explain ^probably why you, indeed, cannot get a
scientific attitude in metaphysics or religion. You want us to believe you
without argumentation. That is biased at the start.
>
>> >>> 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.
That assumes that arithmetic, in virtue of simple truth like 2+2=4, or 6
divides 24, etc… cannot do the job, but that is contradicted by Gödel’s and
Turing’s proof.
I could explain more, but you are so obviously wanting to undermine what I say …
Anyway, I intend to do a part of it in the combinator theory.
>
> > 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
Yes, but brain does the same. The measure will eventually relies on all codings.
>
> >>>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.
You did accept that you survive in a classical, simple (without duplication)
digital teleportation. So you did acknowledge the “here and now” survived in
that case, and indeed, we use the personal memory criterion, which makes this
obvious. But then in the duplication case we can predict with certainty that we
will see only one city.
>
> > 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.
Any guy with the relevant memories. That is enough for the thought experience,
and is refined in the mathematical translation.
>
> > 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?
Well, because I ask the question to that guy in Helsinki, before he pushes the
button.
He survived into both HM and HW, and both HM and HW confirm the prediction: I
see only one city and could not have guess, in H, which one among W or M would
be realised.
>
> > 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.
Then you cannot predict or hope that you would survive with simple
teleportation, nor with an artificial digital brain, and you have abandoned
Mechanism. That is a reduction ad absurdum proving my point.
> If however "he" means somebody who remembers being in Helsinki on Thursday
> (as I do) then "he" will see 2 cities on Friday.
But “he” will not feel to see two cities. In both places, each see only once
city, and which one was the question. You “he” refers to the 3-1 view, when we
come back with the 1/3 precision, that you eliminate in all your critics.
Bruno
(I skip the rest, as it is not argumentation. If it would be, it applies to
what you are saying, not on what I explain). You say “I am not interested in
theology", but you are the one invoking your deity all the times. If you have
an argument that primary matter exists, you are the one needing to give some
argument, or some evidences. And then, would you succeed, then my proof would
become a refutation of Mechanism. Yet, the evidence sides with Mechanism, and
there are just no evidence at all for (weak) materialism. Knowing on the table,
and using Aristotle’s criteria of reality only beg the question.
>
>
> 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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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.
