On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:29 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> You're atoms are different from what they were a year ago, if you >>> have survived that brain transplant operation with your consciousness >>> intact (and only you know if it has) >> >> > > *> >>OK. That is my point.* >> > > >> No, I wish it were but that is not your point, if it were you wouldn't > have made the following silly remark. > > > Which remark? > Saying Mechanism is probably untrue and then "*saying that you survive a digital substitution at some level, is the hypothesis/axiom of Mechanism".* > > Avoid term like “silly”. > I promise to avoid the word "silly" if you promise to avoid being silly. >> For god's sake! You don't need mathematical notation to figure out if >> you are conscious or not or to figure out that if you've already survived >> one brain transplant, and you have, then there is no reason to think you >> won't survive another one. > > > *> You are not at the right level. When we do a theory* [...] > The fact that I am conscious is not a theory. The fact that you are conscious is a theory, a theory that will never be proven. > t*he theory RA (Robinson arithmetic)* [...] > .... has nothing to do with what we were discussing. > > Being shown mistaken is an honour in science, > Not always, not if you can be shown to be wrong with trivial ease, and certainly not if you don't change your mind when shown to be wrong. The pious refused to change their view that everything went around the Earth even when they looked at Jupiter's moons through Galileo's telescope, and I very much doubt Plato or Aristotle would have changed their view that heavy objects fell faster than light ones even if somebody demonstrated before their very eyes that they don't. And likewise you are not one bit impressed by the fact that every atom in your brain has already been substituted by another atom and yet you've survived. That is exactly what you call Mechanism but continue to insist Mechanism is a very dodgy idea. And that Bruno is why I am unable to do as you request and avoid the word "silly". >> you are not Mr. Science and you are not Mr. English so you can't expect >> to unilaterally change the meaning of important words and still effectively >> communicate. > > *> In science we let anyone redefine any term in any theory. * > And here we have yet another example of why I am unable to avoid the use of the word "silly". I John K Clark hereby decree that "God" is now defined to mean "physics is the ultimate reality". Thus I can say with absolute certainty that in the language of Clarkspeak Bruno Marchal is an atheist because he does not believe in God. I can also say that John K Clark is being very very silly. > *You can define god by what remains in case the physical universe > appears to be an illusion, even if a persistent one (to quote Einstein).* The Einstein quote that you've just mangled so horribly comes from a personal letter not a scientific paper and has nothing to do with God, the correct Einstein quote is: "*People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion*." *> I cannot prove that I am conscious, but I can know that I am conscious.* > Yes > *I cannot prove mechanism, even after the experience.* True. > > *It is a theological axioms* [...] > I don't know what "it" is and please don't bother to tell me because whatever "it" may be I can safely ignore "it" because i have better things to do with my time then study the creation myths of bronze age tribes. > >> I define "magic carpet" as a rug that can fly. Like you I give no hint >>>> as to how to build such a thing but unlike you and your "Löbian machine" at >>>> least from my description you can recognize a magic carpet for what it is >>>> if you happen to see one. But neither you or I or Löb has any way of >>>> telling if something is a "Löbian machine" or not. Which means the "Löbian >>>> machine" idea can not help anyone understand anything. >>> >>> >> >> > *You loss me here.* >>> >> >> >>Which word didn't you understand? The only one I don't is "Löbian >> machine” >> > > ? > *! * *> **I have given the definition recently. * > And I have given a definition of a flying carpet recently. I have not told you how to build a flying carpet and you have not told me how to build a "Löbian machine". That's why I didn't call it a "Flying Carpet Machine". However I DID at least tell you how to recognize a flying carpet if you happen to see one, but you are unable to tell me how to recognize a "Löbian machine" even if I stumble over one. Therefore by calling it a "machine" you have grossly misrepresented what you are actually able to do. *> A Lôbian machine is a universal machine believing* [...] > How do I build a machine that believes in something and how can I determine that I've built it correctly? * >(asserting) the theorem of RA, and the induction axioms. Its provability > logic is the one given by the modal logic G and G*. They are called Löbian, > because the main axiom of G is the formula of Löb: []([]p->p)->[]p. * > " []([]p->p)->[]p" is NOT a machine, it is not even close to being a machine, it is just a sequence of ASCII characters that you typed out. > >>> Turing explained in complete detail exactly how to build one of his >>> machines, but neither you or anybody else has ever provided a hint as to >>> how to make one of these things, you don't even tell us how we can >>> recognize a Löbian machine if we see one as you don't say what the machine >>> looks like or what it can do or but only what it "knows". In contrast >>> Turing told us that not all machines are Turing Machines and taught us how >>> to tell the difference. So it's not surprising that, at least according to >>> Google, nobody but you believes the Löbian machine concept to be useful >>> and uses it. >> >> >> >> >> *No. It is a key chapter in mathematical logic,* >> > > >How odd that both Google and Bing know nothing about a key chapter in >> mathematical logic! > > > That is an argument per authority. > Yes but you almost make that sound like all arguments from authority are bad. When I read of an experiment in Nature or Science I know they were probably performed competently and are correct even if I have not personally repeated the experiment because I trust the judgement of the editors of those journals, and I trust their judgement because of induction, they were usually right in the past so they will probably be right in the future. And if nobody in the field of mathematics or computer science finds the "Löbian machine" idea to be useful and Google and Bing tells me nobody has, then it probably isn't. > >> I don't know how to construct a working Löbian machine > > > *> Build a Turing machine* > Which one? There are lots and lots of different Turing Machines. > *emulating a theorem prover of PA, or ZF. Any digital machine capable of > proving elementary theorem on its own functioning, and disposing on some > induction axiom is a Löbian machine.* > I'm not sure what you mean by that. Computers (aka Turing Machines) have been able to prove theorems since the 1950s, but no system can prove itself to be consistent, and if it is consistent (even if it can't prove it) then it is incomplete. And I don't understand "disposing on some induction axiom". *> If you can build a Turing machine, you can build a Löbian machine,* > No I can't build a Löbian machine because I don't have a clue as to how to program my Turing Machine and neither do you. You can't even tell me how many states a 2 symbol Turing Machine would be needed to become a Löbian machine much less specify the particular Turing Machine that would work. Nor did you tell me how I can tell the difference between a Löbian machine that works and a Löbian machine that doesn't work. So how can I debug the program? > >> and I don't even know how I'd recognize it if I saw one. > > > *> Nobody can do that,* > I know, that's why your Löbian machine idea is of absolutely no use to anybody for anything except generating hot air. >> but I know there is not a snowball's chance in hell of you ever doing >> that. Instead you'll just type out some ASCII characters and claim that is >> a machine. > > > *> On the contrary, I will give you some ASCII, but like for the numbers, > I will insist you understand that they are not symbols, but mathematical > object * > Those "mathematical objects" have no effect whatsoever on the physical world, that's why INTEL couldn't make computers out of them and had to use atoms made silicon that obey the laws of physics instead. And that means physics can clearly do something that "mathematical objects" can *NOT *do. > > >>*I use the purely mathematical notion of machine, like Turing an all >>> computer scientist.* >> >> *>> NO!!* Turing told us EXACTLY how to make a real machine, > > > *> I am talking about Turing paper in computability theory. Not Turing’s > building a “real machine” to win the war against the Germans.* > I am talking about a paper tape made of atoms and a read/write head with just 2 symbols that may or may not eventually stop depending on the sequence of symbols on the paper tape. *> Yes, for pedagogical reason, the Turing formalism looks more like a > human (BTW), which was the goal. But even Turing will use the von Neuman > model of computation to implement his “Turing machine” * It's the same principle but for practical reasons Turing used vacuum tubes rather than a paper tape, it's faster. Mechanical calculator or modern iPhone, at the most fundamental level all computers can always be reduced down to a Turing machine. > *>indeed it is Turing who will prove them equivalent to lambda calculus* > Godel always maintained that Turing's accomplishment was greater than that of Alonzo Church for the very reason's I've been talking about. Church's idea was purely mathematical and Turing's idea could also be thought about in an abstract way, but unlike Church Turing's concept could be implemented physically too. You can't do any lambda Calculus unless you've already got a working Turing Machine to do it on. > *Aristotle Theology seems to be your theology.* > That statement is not true in English but it is true in Brunospeak at least for today. I think. However that language mutates so swiftly that it may or may not be true tomorrow. > *Aristotle theology is what I called* [...] > Sorry, I just can't keep up with the changing meaning of "Aristotle theology". > You come back with your assumption that some hardware would be more real > than other, but then you have to tell me what it is, > If I emulate Windows on my iMac and the emulator dies my iMac is still fine, if the operating system of my iMac dies the microprocessor chip in my computer is still fine. > *and how it interfere with the computations in arithmetic.* > It's called "Physics". >> Communism says the state can take all my stuff so it can be equally >> distributed (although some people are more equal than others), but if I >> disagree with that idea and don't want anybody to take my stuff then the >> state must use force, and history has certainly shown they are not shy >> about doing exactly that. In the 20th century communism was tried in many >> countries and every single time it has lead to disaster. Of the 4 greatest >> monsters of the 20th century 3 of them, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, >> were communists. > > > *> But in the European countries we have socialist and communist party, > and up to now, they have respected the democracy and the rule of laws.* > The communist party in Europe respects the rule of law today because they have no choice, they are no longer in power; they sure didn't respect it when they were. > *>>> if my mind operate at the level of gluons, (which I agree is newly >> plausible), * > > >> I would say that is astronomically implausible! > > > *> I agree, but when doing science, that has to be taken into account,* > No! A scientist can NOT investigate every astronomically implausible thing, if he did he'd never get anywhere. >> OK, so in the language of Brunospeak the following statement is true >> "Christians think God does not exist". And in Clarkspeak (which is just >> like English except it reverses the meaning of the words "yes" and "no") if >> I asked "do you agree 100% with every word I've ever written" you would >> answer "yes”. > > > *> You fight with all your force to maintain the statu quo for the Church. > You belong to the soldier who protect the confessional authoritarian > theologian against the bastard greek pagan philosophers* My Brunospeak is very poor and you're the world expert so I'll just take your word that in Brunospeak the above statement is true. >> Instead of freezing a cadaver would it be more moral to put it in the >> ground and let it be eaten by worms or burn it up in a furnace? > > > *> The pioneer of immortality will go to hell. Why? Because they will give > their Gödel number to everybody (an infinity of humans, notably)/ Why? > Because they are born before the absolute quantum encryption encoding, > discover in 4000, which guaranties no one can copy you.* > Your Gödel number is very large but is no closer to being infinite than the number 2 is, so somebody can just try them all and put all of them in hell with me, and then we can argue about this forever. Or maybe they already have and we are there right now. By the way, your Godel number is DIGITAL. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1w-2ohafRnn1gixR8DeeK7fHKMvVMDNkn12VjtNVumSg%40mail.gmail.com.
