On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:52 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> *In (serious) metaphysics, a word like “cuckoo clock” is not well > defined.* Then it is quite clear that serious metaphysics is not very serious. Bozo metaphysics would be a better term. > *If by cuckoo clock you mean the physical object* [...] By cuckoo clock I mean the thing that I'm pointing at that is hanging on the wall right there under your nose. > *> then my answer is NO.* Then whenever you hit the keys on your computer in a certain order and as a result "mechanism" appears on my computer's screen that ASCII sequence conveys no information to me whatsoever. >> Is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years a mechanism? > > > >* Same answer as above,* By the way, no Turing Machine can determine if a particular Tritium atom will decay in the next 12.32 years, the best it can do is give you the odds. To me that indicates physics is in the drivers seat that determines the nature of the world, mathematics is just a language that tries to describe it. *> The physical object “cuckoo clock” is not a being, with Digital > Mechanism.* A cuckoo clock is not a being? I agree but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? >> Oh for christ sake, then EVERYTHING is a informal poorly defined notion. >> And actually that would be OK because fundamentally definitions are not >> important in language, examples are. > > > > *For practical application you are right. *But when we assume mechanism > and sinus metaphysics, the “obvious” is no more obvious. Then the obvious thing to do is not to assume "sinus metaphysics", whatever the hell that is. *> But I made clear that “Mechanism” is the act of faith of saying yes to a > doctor who propose a digital physical body/brain.* That is not an act of faith, there is hard physical evidence to think it may be true. We don't know exactly how matter produce our individual consciousness but we do know it can't be by looking at a hydrogen atom and seeing our name scratched on it because science can see no difference between one hydrogen atom and another. *> you can search for my posts where I have explained this already, perhaps > before you were participating on this list. * Oh we're back to that are we. For at least 5 years and probably closer to 10 you've been telling me about this wonderful post of yours written a long time ago in a galaxy far far away that brilliantly answers all my objections to your philosophy. The trouble is I've never seen that post and I don't know anybody who has even claimed to have seen it. I do however know somebody who has claimed to have seen Bigfoot. >> you are unable to provide a single specific example of something that >> has that quality or single specific example of something that does not. And >> that means you literally don't know what you're talking about. >> > > > *Avoid those ad hominem comment.* It's not ad hominem it's a factual observation. If somebody is unable to give even one specific example of what they are talking about then they *LITERALLY *don't know what they are talking about. > *you have exemplify that you are a believer in primary matter or > physicalism,* I have no idea if I believe in primary matter and physicalism or not because you've never made it clear what you mean by the terms. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *>> > Here is a machine SKKHere is a computation SKKK KK(KK) K* >> >> >> > I see. So 3 squiggles is called a "machine" and 11 squiggles is called >> a "computation”. > > > > *Here you confuse SKK with “SKK”.* I see. So 5 squiggles are called a "machine" not 3 as previously stated. Are 11 squiggles still called a "computation”? >* We implement a function from N to N by putting the input in the register > 1, and we ask that the output is put also in register 1. If the function > has more than one argument, we put the argument in the register 1, and 2, > etc.* You confuse register and "register". One is an electronic or mechanical device that obeys the laws of physics and the other is an ASCII sequence. > Is a cuckoo clock a mechanism? > > > *> With the precision I have added above, the answer is NO.* > Is a roulette wheel a mechanism? > > > *> NO.* > > Is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years a mechanism? > > > *> NO.* > > Is the multiplication table a mechanism? > > *> NO.* And yet SKK (or maybe it was "SKK") *IS* a mechanism! Well, I still have no idea what you mean by mechanism but after reading in the above all the things it is not I have to conclude that whatever you mean by the word it can't be of any use to anyone for anything. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2iAcoQKUT7MSmppXuHCuB5QC4es2xVYpMaT4-cZCVzpA%40mail.gmail.com.
