> On 2 Jun 2019, at 15:19, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:53:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 31 May 2019, at 15:37, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and >> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or >> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board >> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken >> and tuned into games people could play. > > OK. > And all games, like all programs, are played (run) in arithmetic. > > Bruno > > > > But still, to run programs, including ones that play bridge, poker, chess, > one goes to a computer store and buys a computer to run them in.
Yes, if the goal consists in running a program relatively you environment, but the existence of the environment is only explained, when we assume Mechanism, by the fact that elementary arithmetic run all programs, and that we are distributed in them. It is explained by the non trivial statistics on all computations that we get when we take incompleteness and computer science into account. > One doesn't go into Best Buy and buy arithmetic and carry it out the door. Of course. The problem is to explain where the physical computer appearance come from, and why there is no more white rabbits. At first sight arithmetic predicts too much, but then when we do the math, the too much becomes the solution, a bit like in quantum mechanics, it is because the wave describe all the path taken by the particles, that we get the destructive interference explain why some parts is more common than other. Mechanism does not oppose to physics, only to physicalism. To use mechanism to make physical prediction is like to use string theory to taste a pizza. It makes no practical sense. Physics is usually neutral on after death (unlike many physicalist). With Mechanism, we can show how much such question are complicated, but also that we have tools to measure that complexit, and get a tentative picture of the possible everything, and test it with Nature. Bruno > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebc15537-99c1-4185-badb-8cac34d25dda%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebc15537-99c1-4185-badb-8cac34d25dda%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74F844ED-609D-46EC-82E9-4E44D9774C2A%40ulb.ac.be.
