> On 18 Dec 2018, at 22:22, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote > > > I was explaining that pure numbers are changeless, but their relationships > > yield computations which like spacetime, have manifest change > > 2+3=5, that relationship between the pure numbers 2,3 and 5 doesn't change, > manifestly or otherwise. > > > I was not saying you would find an arithmetical relation in spacetime, > > True, you were saying the exact opposite, you were saying you could find > spacetime in the relationship between pure numbers and so everything comes > from pure numbers, but I'll be damned if I can see how you reached that > conclusion. > > > I was saying there is a correspondence between arithmetical computations, > > and the subjective time evolution of spacetime > > Arithmetical computations don't change so there can't be a correspondence > between them and the evolution of spacetime or with anything else that can > change. > > >> 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. > > > I have no idea what you mean by "an incorrect computation". > > I believe you are being disingenuous with me, I believe you do have some idea > of what "a incorrect calculation" might mean and in fact I believe at various > times in your life you have had first hand experience with such a thing, > > > in the set of all computations, all computations exist. > > Obviously, but in such an infinite set nearly all the computations in it > would be self contradictory, I believe the technical term for that is > "wrong", although some prefer the word "stupid". > > > What is an incorrect computation? Incorrect with respect to what? > > Incorrect with respect to the laws of logic and the Peano Postulates, the > very thing used to give formal definitions to numbers, the very thing that > you and Bruno claim sits at the foundation of reality.
You are confusing COMPUTABITY and PROVABILITY. A provability predicate can be incorrect relatively to the standard model of arithmetic. A computation per se cannot be incorrect, unless it is a special sort of computation, and that it has a mathematical specification, in which case it can be incorrect with respect to that specification. But that means that you compute with a theory (provability) in your mind. In that sense, arithmetic contains incorrect computations, and even bosses firing employees for diverse type of “incorrect behavior”. But that is the same for any Parmenidian type of reality (like Arithmetic with mechanism, or like a Block universe with GR, etc.) Bruno > > > So long as the computation is the result of a functioning Turing machine > > nothing it does can be called an "incorrect computation". > > A functioning Turing Machine does not take its marching orders from the Peano > Postulates or from the numbers they define, a functioning Turing Machine only > does what its program orders it to do and even then only if that order does > not violate physical law. Depending on the program you could have the > functioning Turing Machine output that 2+3 is 4,5,6,-17, 6.02*10^23. or an > infinity of other things, but only one of those programs treats numbers the > way Peano said they should be treated, and thus out of an infinite of > possible programs only one will produce an output consistent with arithmetic. > > > Note the context is we're talking about arithmetical computations, not > > physical machines > > And speaking of self inconsistency, a non-physical Turing Machine can not be > functional because, just like all machines, a Turing Machine must be able to > change and nothing can change except matter/energy. There is a reason it's > called a Turing Machine and not a Turing principle. > > > I thought you "weren't religious". This looks like blind faith to me. > Don't worry, I'll say it for you: > > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that > one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > Thank you. You've saved me some time, now I won't have to go looking for my > rubber stamp. > > 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] > <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.
