On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:05 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>* It is very simple. Never claim to have the truth, and always present a
> theory having verifiable consequences.*
>
Your theory is a working Turing Machine can be made without using matter or
physics, so don't show me more squiggles, show me a verifiable consequence
of that theory, show me your mystical machine actually making a
calculation so I can verify it is correct. Of course we both know you will
never EVER be able to do that, but that won't stop you from continuing to
sell your snake oil.
>>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.
>
>
> *> The existence is provable in Peano arithmet*ic.
>
If an observable Turing Machine that makes no use of matter or physics has
been proven to exist why is it that nobody has ever seen one and nobody
ever will? Because what Peano actually proved is that some squiggles that
humans (who are made of matter and obey the laws of physics) have assigned
meaning to is the same as other squiggles that humans have assigned
different meanings to. None of those squiggles are Turing Machines and none
of them are powerful enough to calculate 2+2.
> *>Read Gödel 1931.*
>
In 1931 Godel knew nothing about Turing Machines.
>> Prove me wrong by producing a working machine that doesn't use matter or
>> physics.
>
>
> *>This is ambiguous.*
>
*Like hell it is!* My request is about as unambiguous as things get.
> *Either you ask me something contradictory at the start,*
>
Like explaining why your observable Turing Machine, the one that works
without using using matter or physics, is totally unobservable
> > *or you ask me an example of a working machine, relatively to a
> universal machine, in arithmetic. *
>
I'm not picky, it can be relative to anything you want, all I ask is that
it be observable and able to make a calculation without using matter or
physics; and it need not be complicated, 2+2 would be good enough.
> >>And by "working" I mean one that changes in time or space or both.
>
>
> >OK. Then your laptop is an excellent example.
>
Correct, and unless Apple just came out with something new all laptops are
made of matter and they all obey the laws of physics.
*> People who says that theology or metaphysics cannot be done with the
> scientific method are those who want impose their personal conviction to
> others.*
>
Metaphysics with the scientific method is just physics, and theology with
the scientific method causes the entire area of study to evaporate.
> > *Religion has been separated from science for one reason only: to make
> it into an instrument of control of the others.*
>
Yes let's go back to the good old days of the inquisition when authorities
knew how to deal with blasphemers like Galileo.
> You can produce it anyway you like provided its observable.
>
>
> *We have to agree by what mean by observable.*
>
But before we can do that we must first agree on what we mean by "mean",
then we have to agree on what we mean by "mean by "mean"" then we have to
agree on what we mean by "mean by "mean by "mean""", then ....
I've noticed this phenomena before in debates when somebody is losing, they
start demanding definitions of words, and then demanding definitions of the
words in the definition, and then definitions of the words in the definitions
of the words in the definition, and then ...
> > *I have no clue what you mean by observable,*
>
Oh I think you do, I think you have a clue, you just can't produce what I
ask.
> > *you invoke your god-primary matter* [...] *Repeating a statement
> again and again does not make it valid.*
>
Very good, for once you say something I agree with completely.
>> 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)}*
>
I tried that but it doesn't work, I've been shouting at {(q1 B 1 q1)} at
the top of my lungs "*HOW MUCH IS 2+2 ?*" but nothing changes,
the squiggles just sit there.
>>You just said that pure arithmetic can do exactly that, so stop talking
>> about it and SHOW ME.
>
>
> > See my paper for the proof.
>
To hell with your idiotic "proof", don't tell me SHOW ME a Turing Machine
that is not made of matter that can calculate 2+2!
> >>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.*
>
I guess "ambiguous" is you're new favorite word. I already said "working"
is something that changes in time or space or both, what the hell is
ambiguous about that?
> > *How could a universal machine distinguish a physically working
> environment, and an arithmetically environment?*
>
Easy, if the environment changes in time or space then its physical, if it
doesn't then its arithmetical, and if the environment can't change then a
Turing Machine built in it WON'T WORK.
> >> it's easy for me to show you matter doing arithmetic
>
>
> > *You have never succeed in showing that, *
>
You just gave a good example of that a few paragraphs ago, my computer that
I'm writing this on.
> *> I can show you arithmetic doing not only arithmetic, but even
> meta-arithmetic. This is proved in all textbook of mathematical logic.*
>
Mathematical logic textbooks are about how humans (who are made of matter
and obey the laws of physics) should manipulate squiggles, neither the
textbooks nor the squiggles in them have the power to calculate 2+2. That's
why Apple puts Silicon and not logic textbooks inside their computers.
>
> >> 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.*
>
No physics student is crazy enough to think a physics textbook proves that
the words in them can make a pizza, but you think a mathematical logic
textbook proves the symbols in them show that ASCII characters can make
calculations, so I guess logicians are crazier than physicists.
> > *Things does not work that way.*
>
True, and that's because for anything to DO anything it must be physical.
Only physical stuff can change and if you DO something then something must
change.
>>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, *
>
I don't assume I know that arithmetic is eternal and unchanging and
therefore is unable to DO the job of un-encoding a Godel number, and can't
DO any other job either.
>> 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.*
>
I think I would survive teleportation with or without duplication, but
unlike you I can always give meanings to all the personal pronouns I use
without contradiction, and I never say silly thing like "you is defined as
the you of the here and now".
>>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.*
>
OK, and the relevant memories are those of Helsinki, therefore according to
what you just said there is simply no way to avoid the conclusion that
Mr.You will see 2 cities.
> *That is enough for the thought experience,*
>
I agree, but I have no doubt you will very soon retract the stuff you said
above about relevant memories, it was true but if supports my position not
yours.
> *> He survived into both HM and HW, and both HM and HW confirm the
> prediction:*
>
When I count "HM" and "HW" I count 2, you're the mathematician so you tell
me, did I count correctly? If I did count correctly then how many cities
did the Helsinki Man see?
> *I see only one city and could not have guess,*
>
Who exactly could not have guessed what exactly? And now John Clark awaits
with dread the oncoming tsunami of personal pronouns with not one of them
having a clear referent.
>>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. *
>
Either that or Bruno has given a very silly definition to the personal
pronoun "he". With one screwy definition Bruno can make "God" exist and
with another screwy definition Bruno can make "you" unable to survive from
one second to the next.
> > *That is a reduction ad absurdum proving my point.*
>
Yes, if you're point is you're using screwy definitions.
>>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.*
>
If a Catholic is duplicated and transported to Helsinki and Moscow how many
cities will a Catholic see?
> > In both places, each see only once city,
>
And each place only tells half the story of what the Helsinki Man ends up
seeing.
> > *you are the one invoking your deity all the times.*
>
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> > *using Aristotle’s criteria of **[*...]
>
.... Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks Greeks ...
>*you will invoke 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.
> *It is hard to convince believer.*
>
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
>>Don't you ever get tired of dead Greeks?
>
>
>*Aristotle (matter exists ontologically) and Plato* [blah blah blah]
And we have an answer, no you never get tired of dead Greek fossils.
> > *the rationalist among the theologians* [...]
>
There are no rationalist among theologians, if they're rational they
wouldn't be theologians.
> *>it is very reasonable to reread Plato*
>
No it is not very reasonable because every hour spent reading Plato is an
hour not spent reading someone who, unlike Plato, actually knows where the
sun went at night.
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.
