On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:30 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:44 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> *Pure numbers may not correspond to point in time and space, but >>> their relationships do. * >> >> >> >> Where and when did 2+2=4 happen? > > > *That is a category mistake.* > I agree, but I didn't say it, Jason is the one who said "*Pure numbers may not correspond to point in time and space, but their relationships do". * > *Events happens, in physical realities. “2+2=4” can be said to be true, > not that it happens. The truth of 2+2=4 is just not a physical truth. It is > an arithmetical truth.* > OK I think that's pretty much correct, it's dumb to ask where and when 2+2=4 happened because the relationships between numbers have nothing to do with the fundamental properties of time and space and so can not generate them. And therefore Physics has something Arithmetic doesn't. > >> Does that relationship between 2 and 4 ever change? > > > *> Same remark. We can’t say that it changes, nor that it does not change, > as change does not apply.* > Then numbers and their relationships are insufficient to produce a mind, more is required because change is essential for a mind, even a rudimentary one. > * > If something physical needs to be added, how could a universal machine > detect it* > Obviously it couldn't detect it if it only had numbers to work with. But I'm not sure what you mean by "universal machine", a machine must have the ability to change and you just said and I agreed that it's silly to talk about a number or its relationship with another number occurring at a time or at a place, so a "machine" made of nothing but numbers is self contradictory. > *> and how would that physical primary thing interfere with the > computations in arithmetic * > Interfere? Physics doesn't interfere with computations it produces them, and Turing showed exactly how it does so when reduced to its simplest most fundamental level. > * > It is bad philosophy/religion. * > If it's bad philosophy/religion then logically that implies there must be something good about it. > *If you agree that 2+2=4 independently of you, * > If I was the sum total of physical reality I would disagree, but I'm not so I don't. > > *then it follows that all computations exists independently of you.* > OK, in platonic heaven all computations exist, and I mean all of them, the incorrect ones as well as the correct ones, and only a physical Turing Machine can seperate the correct from the incorrect computations. In the same way when Michelangelo carved his huge statue of David he started with a single colossal block of marble and used his chisel to seperate the parts of the block that were correctly part of David from the parts of the block that were incorrectly part of David. There were an infinite number of incorrect Davids inside that block of marble and only one correct one, and Michelangelo used his brain and his chisel to get to the correct one, and both are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > *Today we know that not only all computations are emulated in arithmetic, > but we know that they are already emulated by just one degree 4 diophantine > polynomial.* > Degree 4 diophantine polynomials aren't going to be DOING any emulating or DOING anything else either until something changes, and numbers can't change and neither can their relationships, so they can't DO anything. But matter/energy can change and its the only thing that can, so it's the only thing that can DO stuff. *> The problem is that you don’t study the proofs given.* > The problem is after less than half a page it's painfully obvious your "proof" does not deserve more study because you are unable to answer even the most elementary questions about it, such as "who does that personal pronoun refer to?". > *>If Mechanism is correct, the universe cannot be computable. * > *If Mechanism is false, the universe cannot be computable.* > If Mechanism is correct then complex objects including intelligent conscious ones can best be understood by examining the interactions of its parts. But Mechanism does NOT demand everything about a complex object be understandable (that would be Materialism not Mechanism) and Turing proved that in general we can not understand what a physical purely mechanical MACHINE will do, it might stop and it might not, all we can do is watch it and wait, and we might be waiting forever. > > *you need to asses step 3 * > You need to fix step 3. > y*ou beg the question in the same recurrent manner of the creationists, > and people having dogma.* > 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 [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.
