On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:59 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Your theory is a working Turing Machine can be made without using matter
>> or physics,
>
>
> *No. My hypothesis is that we can survive with a digital brain.*
But, at least until recently, you maintained that a digital brain can exist
without matter or physics; if you have changed your mind about that we have
nothing more to argue about.
>* physics cannot assume Aristotle* [...]
Physics CAN safely assume that neither Aristotle nor any other ancient
Greek fossil can be of the slightest help in answering modern cutting edge
scientific questions.
*> What you say is a fuzzy and quite misleading rephrasing of a theorem
> (not a theory).*
What I say is SHOW Me this mystical Turing Machine of yours that doesn't
need matter or physics make a calculation, don't tell me about it, don't
claim to have a proof about it, just SHOW ME it making a calculation. And
there is nothing fuzzy about that request.
*> You confuse phi_x(y) with phi_u(x,y).*
That's not as bad as being confused about what you just proved even after
you've finished correctly manipulating all the symbols in the proof.
>> In 1931 Godel knew nothing about Turing Machines.
>
>
> > *Gödel still showed the arithmization of all partial computable
> function, by showing the arithmetisation of the primitive recursive
> functions,*
That shows that some symbols that humans (who are made of matter and obey
physics) have assigned meaning to are equivalent to other symbols humans
have assigned meaning to.
> He just missed the Markov-Post-Kleene-Church-Turing thesis.
Did you know that of all the people that have extended his work Godel
thought Turing's was the most profound? He had more respect for Turing than
Church even though Church independently solved the halting problem a few
months before Turing because in the process of solving it Turing told us
something new about the physical world that Church did not.
*> Just look into a mirror. You will see one. Well, you will see an image
> of one. I can’t do better.*
I have no doubt that is true, you can't do better, and that's not nearly
good enough. I requested a working Turing machine that does not make use of
matter or physics, and obviously the thing in the mirror is observable or
the mirror wouldn't work, and it's made of matter that obeys the laws of
physics.
> > A Turing machine is a finite set of quadruplets.
If that's what "Turing Machine" means in Brunospeak then a "Turing Machine"
is a very boring thing because a "finite set of quadruplets" can't change
in time or space unless a mathematician, who is made of matter and obeys
physics, changes it. Nothing changes without matter and physics.
*> It does not belong to the category of the observable thing.*
OK, you're un-observable Turing Machine can make calculations without
matter or physics, but that's nothing, my un-observable angel who likes to
dance on the head of a pin can compute non-computable functions like the
Busy Beaver. My my un-observable thing can beat your observable thing!
> > Turing machine are not physical object.
And that's why what you (and nobody else) calls a "Turing Machine" can't DO
anything, only physical stuff can change in time or space.
> *You are the one having introduced “observable Turing machine”.*
Yes indeed, and I did that because unlike you I am a fan of the scientific
method.
> *only a physical implementation can make something observable.*
Yep, and that's not the only advantage, only a physical implementation can
make something change in time or space, and without change you can't have
calculation or intelligence or consciousness or DO anything at all.
>> 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.
>
>
> > *But this I did answer already two times. Come on! It is done in all
> textbooks.*
TEXTBOOKS CAN'T CALCULATE, and the reason they can't is that the sequence
of symbols in them never changes.
*> and see page 62 its implementation in arithmetic.*
Page 62 can't calculate any better than the entire textbook can. Your
problem is even if you are able to follow all the steps in a proof after
you've finished all the steps you don't have a deep understanding of
exactly what it is that you just proved.
> *> You attack me like people who says that the simulation of a typhoon
> cannot make me wet.*
A simulation of a typhoon can't make me wet but it can DO other things,
like produce a display on a computer monitor screen, but your airy fairy
unobservable "Turing Machine" that makes no use of matter or physics can
not DO anything to anyone or anything because it never changes.
*> a tiny art of the arithmetical reality (model, semantic) is Turing
> complete, arithmetic simulates the typhoon*
Arithmetical reality can't simulate diddly squat without a computer made of
matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> **That* is the Aristotelian credo.*
Given your great love for ancient fossils and extinct things you should
have gone into paleontology rather than mathematics
*> You are just saying “my Aristotelian religion” is the only true one. *
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 already confessed to be open to a notion of event without a cause.*
Yes I am open to the idea because there are only 2 possibilities, either
the iterated sequence of "Why did that happen?" questions comes to a end
with a brute fact or it doesn't, and neither possibility violates a law of
logic.
*> That is bizarre someone open to Everett. *
Why? There is a reason the Multiverse has always existed or there isn't.
*> If you agree that the simulated typhoon is observable by the simulated
> person, whatever universal system realise the simulation, then we are OK. I
> think.*
Yes, a simulated person can observe a simulated typhoon but so can we who
are outside the computer because the simulation can change things in our
world in addition to the simulated world; if we couldn't see it too nobody
would bother to make computer simulations. But unlike simulations nobody
anywhere can observe your mystical non-material Turing Machine because it
doesn't have the ability to change anything in time or space.
>> 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.
>
>
> > *Repeating a joke does not make it more funny either.*
If it's a joke it's your joke not mine, you're the one who claimed {(q1 B
1 q1)} had extraordinary but conveniently unobservable abilities.
> *> with Aristotle’s criterion or reality *[...]
In related news, paleontologists have found the fossil of a new dinosaur
species in Africa:
Jurassic giant
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/09/28/giant-dinosaur-species-discovered-south-africa/1454983002/>
*> I would say that observable by a machine u means that u can make a
> measurement and repeat it and get some results.*
I'll make this as easy for you as I can, forget calculation forget Turing
Machines forget measurement, all you have to do is show me one thing that
makes no use of matter or energy or the laws of physics that can change in
time or space or both.
> > if the environment changes in time or space then its physical,
>
>
> *OK, but then we have many physical things in arithmetic,*
So the value of 2+2 is one thing in Moscow and something different in
Washington,
and it changes from Wednesday to Thursday?
*> as it dovetails on all programs execution,*
No program can be executed without a computer that is made of matter and
uses energy.
*> You have not even show me primary matter.*
I can never prove there is nothing more fundamental than matter and I can
never prove there isn't a weightless invisible hippopotamus sitting on my
head, but there is no evidence of either.
*> We can still belong to the infinite of “video games” that should be
> supporting us below our substitution level.*
If there is a infinity of levels then nothing is primary, mathematics can't
be at the foundation of things because there is no foundational level and
the iterated "Why are things that way?" questions just keep going on and on
forever.
*> You confuse the textbooks, and what those textbooks are about.*
The meaning in textbooks is whatever humans, who are made of matter and use
energy, care to give them, and some humans are more skillful at doing this
than others. Professors give a A to students that are good at this and a F
to those that aren't.
> *The arithmetical reality is (provably) different that what *any*
> textbook can describe.*
Huh? How does that support your position that textbooks can prove ethereal
non-material Turing machines can make real calculations.
>> That's why Apple puts Silicon and not logic textbooks inside their
>> computers.
>
>
> > *The textbooks have helped them to know what they were implemented in
> the physical neighbourhood.*
Certainly, but Apple isn't going to be doing any calculating without matter
and energy.
*> You so the 1 virus “1” confusion (for the nth time).*
I'm not a bit confused by the difference, I think a Turing Machine can
make a calculation but "a Turing Machine" can't because ASCII characters
never change. You believe something else because you are confused about
what a proof is trying to tell you. .
*> When I refer to the textbooks, obviously I was referring to the content*
The content of a textbook can't change without matter and energy thus it
can't calculate or DO anything at all.
*> The fact that a mathematician needs a chalk to write the axioms of group
> theory*
He needs a lot more than chalk, to formulate and understand the axioms of
group theory the mathematician needs a brain made of matter and energy to
run it.
> *you invoke your Aristotelian * [....]
In more news from the wonderful world of paleontology a fossilized egg of
the extinct Elephant Bird has been found:
Dinosaur sized fossil bird
<https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/giant-intact-egg-extinct-elephant-bird-found-buffalo-museum-180968850/>
> *> Maybe this explains why you stop at step 3?*
Why on Earth would any rational person keep reading a proof after they
found a blunder that the author can't fix?
>> 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.
>
>
> > *So you reject GR and/or any block view of physics? You reject
> Einstein’s conception of space-time.*
In the first place Einstein was a physicist not a mathematician and the
block universe involves matter and energy. In the second place the block
universe as a whole never changes (if we ignore Quantum Mechanics as
Einstein did) and so can't calculate and even if it did nobody could see
it, but things in it can calculate. When a Turing Machine moves from point
A to point B in the block universe it changes with time and so a
calculation is made.
>
> *So, once in Helsinki, what do you predict will happen, from the first
> person view,*
That is not a question, that is gibberish. You introduced a first person
point of view duplicating machine in your thought experiment so there
is no longer
such a thing as "*THE *first person view".
*> I recall that by definition of the protocol,* [...]
The word "protocol" makes it sound very scientific but you don't even know
who the personal pronouns that infested the thought experiment refer to after
you ground them up in your personal pronoun duplicating machine.
> *>> > 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.
>
>
> > *At once?*
If you meant what you just said about Mr.You being "Any guy with the
relevant memories" then certainly at once, it could not be any other way.
However I am quite certain you will start backtracking because you didn't
think through what you just said
*> It is the definition used at the very beginning, and it trivially
> contradicts the account by both copies,*
Mr. You is defined as somebody who has the relevant memories, nowhere in
the definition does it say there can only be one that has the relevant
memories.
>
> *> who both agree that they saw only one city after opening the door.*
Yes, and there are two of them, you're the mathematician so correct me if
I'm wrong but I believe 1+1=2 .
> *> When I count "HM" and "HW" I count 2, you're the mathematician so you
>> tell me, did I count correctly?*
>
>
> > *But the first person experience is* [...]
And that is exactly what's wrong with your "protocol", I don't know who's "
*THE* first person experience" you're talking about and neither do you.
> *You keep desiring the 3-1 view, *
I desire you stop talking gibberish.
*> Both the HM and HW man have lived the experience of seeing one city.*
How many times does the letter "H" appear in "HM and HW "? I think the
answer is 2. What do you think?
> Who exactly could not have guessed what exactly?
>
>
> > *The H-guy is able to predict with P = 1, that he will open the door,
> see ONE city, *
I don't know who the hell Mr.He is, and neither do you, and neither does
the H man, and neither does the W man, and neither does the M man,
therefore nobody can predict or say anything relevant at all about the
mysterious Mr.He.
*> You really like Aristotle!*
In another related story, an ancient fossilized Dinosaur toe bone has been
found in Oregon:
Extinct old fossilized dinosaur
<https://kcby.com/outdoors/only-this-toe-bone-was-entombed-and-became-a-fossil-dinosaur-an-oregon-first>
> If a Catholic is duplicated and transported to Helsinki and Moscow how
>> many cities will a Catholic see?
>
>
> > *One. *
So you think 2 Catholics in 2 different cities will only see one city, did
one of them go blind?
>> each place only tells half the story of what the Helsinki Man ends up
>> seeing.
>>
>
> > *Yes, that is the first person experience.*
There is no "*THE* first person experience" in the thing you call your
protocol.
> > *the HM and the HW guy have become different guy,*
I agree, HM and HW are both the Helsinki Man but are different from each
other, and that is exactly why I don't know who the hell this mysterious
Mr.He is that you keep talking about.
*> **Doing theology with the scientific attitude requires....*
... not being troubled by self contradiction.
> t*he two main conception of reality was what the greeks* [...] *You have
> chosen Aristotle’s* [...]
You'll be interested in this, fossilized dinosaur turds from the Jurassic
can be bought on Ebay, you can make a bid for one here:
FOSSILIZED DINOSAUR TURDS
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/2-DINO-Poops-Petrified-DINOSAUR-COPROLITE-FOSSIL-POOP-9-1-2LB-Museum-Grade/143007578614?_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3Dd0e3da9c109442bcbc7adf30916354e8%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D7%26sd%3D302983753797%26itm%3D143007578614&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851>
> *why do you do theology? *
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
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.
