> On 19 Dec 2018, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:19 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:45 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:05 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM John Clark <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> "y = 2x+1" defines the arithmetical relation of "oddness".
>
> Solutions to this equation yield (compute) for y all possible odd numbers. y
> changes with respect to increasing values of x, just as John Clark's brain
> changes with respect to increasing values of t.
>
> How does 'x' change?
>
> With respect to y, and vice versa (like your brain state and your location in
> spacetime).
>
> Poor analogy. Change in the physical world is governed by dynamics, described
> by equations with a veritable 't', called time. Time is probably only a local
> phenomenon, but I do not see any 'time' variable in arithmetic.
>
> It depends on the equation.
>
> What equation? There are no dynamics in arithmetic.
What equation?
Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)
With very few identity relations, I have prove the existence of all
computations. That includes the one making you conscious here and now. If you
invoke an ontological commitment to select your consciousness, then you have to
abandon mechanism, and search for a non computationalist theory of mind.
Oh! May be you did not follow the combinator thread, so, if you still ask for
equation, I give you this purely Diophantine equation, which are provably
equivalent with the two combinator law above. That is far longer to prove, of
course, and this results comes from the 50 years of hard work by Putnam, Davis,
Robinson (Juila), and Matiyasevic. The polynomial below if from Matiyasevic and
Jones:
Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y
ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2
Qu = B^(5^60)
La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5
Th + 2Z = B^5
L = U + TTh
E = Y + MTh
N = Q^16
R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)
+ [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)
P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2
(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2
4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2
K = R + 1 + HP - H
A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2
C = 2R + 1 Ph
D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga
D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1
F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1
(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1
X and Nu are the only parameters. The rest are variables. That is a system of
polynomials, which is Turing universal. For some value of Nu, it generates the
prime numbers. For some other value of Nu, it simulates any digital
computational process.
Bruno
>
> The analogy with the block universe idea is useless, because the block
> universe idea is only a picture, not a reality. Special relativity merely
> abolishes any notion of Newtonian absolute time, it does not prove that all
> instants of time are equally and simultaneously existent. The whole notion of
> simultaneity is abolished in relativity. Minkowski's block universe was a
> response to this, but not a very good picture in the final analysis, because
> it completely fails to capture the local dynamical aspect of the time
> variable.
>
> Did you read https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11921131.pdf
> <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11921131.pdf> ?
>
> No. Why should I?
>
> What is your interpretation of the
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument> ?
>
> The "present" is a local concept which cannot be extended to global
> hyperplanes.
> Remember, the only sensible definition of "time" is an operational definition
> -- "time is what is measured on a clock". This is a purely local concept.
>
> Do you agree in principal, that human experience of a dynamically evolving
> universe cannot be used to decide between block time and presentism?
>
> Special relativity certainly cannot be used to justify the block universe
> concept.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> 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.
