> On 6 Dec 2018, at 21:19, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:59 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
> <mailto: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.
A human brain needs matter, but even a human brain does not need PRIMITIVE, or
irreducible matter.
NUMBER ==> CONSCIOUSNESS ==> MATTER ==> HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS
>
> > 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.
But we re not doing physics, but metaphysics.
Scientists who say that they are not interested in meta^physics often
implicitly take Aristotle’s theology (existence of irreducible matter) for
granted.
You own perpetual invocation of some primitive physical reality shows that you
do exactly that: you accept Aristotle theology, and mocks any departure from
it, apparently.
Plato was just much in advance compared to Aristotle, who did not understood
Plato. Both QM, and mechanism, are much closer to Plato, even Pythagorus, than
to Aristotle.
>
> > 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.
I have done that, but then you criticise it as being “invisible” and bu using
your Aristotelian criteria of truth (observable), which beg the question.
You are the one doing an ontological commitment. But there is no paper showing
that primary matter exists. You speculate on something, just to prevent
scientific testing. That is unscientific.
>
> > 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)
Human are made of matter and obey to physics, sure, but that does not mean that
this matter is primitive.
> 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.
That is plainly wrong. Turing used a more apparently-physical machine to model
better a human being for pedagogical purpose, but the main point is that his
machine is mathematical, and later shown yto be arithmetical.
>
> > 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.
It is made of matter, but it is not made of primitive matter. You are the one
in need to refute this, but if you succeed you would have found a way a
universal machine can detect primitive matter. But then an infinity of digital
machine would be able to prove the existence of primary matter in arithmetic,
which is a nonsense.
>
> > 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.
My definition of Turing’s machine is the standard definitio as anyone can
verify. It is Turing’s one (except he is using quintuplet, but that is a
detail).
A computation is not a change in physical time, the digital natural number
successor relation is enough. You need only the relation x —> s(x).
>
> > 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)
And everybody else.
> calls a "Turing Machine" can't DO anything, only physical stuff can change in
> time or space.
In the Aristotelian theology.
>
> > 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.
No. You are a fan of Aristotle theology, which equates physics with
metaphysics. That is a string metaphysical axiom, indeed, provably false when
we assume digital mechanism.
>
> > 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.
That is physicalism. But it is incompatible with mechanism. Nobody has made
sense of your “refutation”, as it eliminate the 1p and 3p distinction at a
place we need to distinguish it.
>
> >> 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,
Here, you do again the error you are accusing me to do above. You read “by”
textbook, where I wrote “in textbook”, just hoping you would open it and study
(its content). You also don’t quote me entirely.
> 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.
You continue playing with word. You well tell Schroedinger “show me how tomato
a pizza with your equation”, and mock his equation, as it cannot do that.
> 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.
Argument?
>
> > 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.
The changes might be in the mind of the machine, like in a GR block-universe.
>
> > 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.
False.
>
> > *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.
Then, try to take some distance with your faith in primitive matter.
>
> > 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.
I have already given a counter-example for this.
>
> > That is bizarre someone open to Everett.
>
> Why? There is a reason the Multiverse has always existed or there isn't.
Yes, and there is a reason.
>
> > 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.
Everyone see this.
>
> >> 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.
That is impossible, and there is no reason to ask me this, unless you invoke
your faith in time and space, but as a scientist we have to be agnostic, and
just show how we can test our theories. You keep invoking your opinion, and
this to prevent testing.
>
> > > 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?
You can see it that way.
>
> > as it dovetails on all programs execution,
>
> No program can be executed without a computer that is made of matter and uses
> energy.
That contradicts the definition of execution in computer science. You confuse
execution with physical execution.
>
> > You have not even show me primary matter.
>
> I can never prove there is nothing more fundamental than matter
It follows from Digital Mechanism.
> 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,
Why? With mechanism, you can take the numbers, or the combinators, or any term
of any Turing-complete theory as primitive, then physics is recovered, and
many-levels go with it.
> 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.
With mechanism it stops at the natural number + addition + multiplication.
With this, we can explain why we can’t take less, and why we can’t add more.
You would read the greeks, you would know that you argument has already been
done and refuted by them.
>
> > 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.
That position is called reductionist materialism. Mechanism is incompatible
with materialism (reductionist or not).
>
> > 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.
Textbook can contain proofs but do not prove. You put many things in my mouth,
which I have never asserted.
It is, needless to say, the arithmetical reality (not to confuse with theories,
still less with presentation of theories) which do the computations.
>
>
> >> 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.
Nobody said that. But Apple, matter and energy comes from the number relations,
when we assume mechanism.
To refute this, you need to show me some evidence for primary matter. There are
none.
>
> > 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
You think that only a physical implementation can do a computation. But that is
just wrong.
> but "a Turing Machine" can't because ASCII characters never change.
Change relatively to what? You god the primary physical universe?
Invoking your personal ontological commitment in metaphysics is pseudo-science,
or pseudo-religion.
> 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.
Read what you just quoted.
>
> > 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.
That illustrate how much you confuse the mathematical reality with the human
perception of that reality.
>
> > 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?
All scientist do that all the time. Then more than 5 people show you the
blunder you were making.
>
> >> 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.
But not time, which was the object of the discussion. Secondly, it involve
matter and energy, but not primary matter a priori.
> 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.
So it is like the arithmetical reality. It does not calculate, but contains all
universal numbers and they do calculate relatively to each other. Time and all
physicalness becomes relative.
> 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.
Idem in arithmetic.
>
> > 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”.
In helsinki, as you will survive, there is necessarily some sense to “the first
pov”. You (in helsinki) are just unable to say which one. It cannot be both, it
cannot be none. And, as confirmed by the two copies (who inherit from the
helsinki identity), both see only one city.
>
> > 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.
Where? We did agree on all pronouns used at each state. Your refutation just
confuse 1p and 3p pow after the guy pushes the button.
>
> >> > 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.
Then mechanism entails telepathy.
> 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.
No, but with mechanism, the helsinki guy knows that none of the copies will
have the same memory or experience than the others, which justifies entirely
that in Helsinki he is maximally ignorant on {W, M}.
>
> > 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 .
But that gives the 3p description. But that (correct) 3p description entails
that each copy understand that he was unable, in Helsinki, to predict which one
would be realised after pushing the trigger.
>
> > 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.
That is what we know the best, and with mechanism, we attribute 1p
consciousness to both copies, and both see only one city, and recognise he
could not have predict it in Helsinki, which is the point.
Here you eliminate the first person experience of the copies. They BOTH says
ONE city.
>
> > You keep desiring the 3-1 view,
>
> I desire you stop talking gibberish.
To call gibberish the precision needed will not help you.
>
> > 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?
2, that is correct. But how many city those 2 guys see from their 1p view: ONE.
>
> > 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,
The H-guy.
> 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,
Each of them? Yes, indeed. Unless telepathy.
> did one of them go blind?
Each are blind (so to speak) with respect to the city he is not in, indeed.
The HM guy do not see W, and the HW guy do not see M. As the prediction bear on
that seeing, that makes the proof.
>
> >> 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.
Then you die, and you backtrack on mechanism, making my point.
>
> > 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,
Indeed, they see different cities, and understand that no matter which city
they would have predicted, it would be wrong for one of them. Making my point.
> and that is exactly why I don't know who the hell this mysterious Mr.He is
> that you keep talking about.
It is always the H-guy, who survives into HM and HW, but, of course, only in
one of them from the 1p view.
Bruno
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> 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 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.
