On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
*> I never said that Mechanism is a dodgy idea. I explains that it is > incompatible with (weak) materialism (the belief matter has a irreducible > ontology) and that the test (notably quantum mechanics) confirms Mechanism, > and refute (weak) materialism.* > All I can get out of the above mishmash is that by "matter" you mean anything that does have a irreducible ontology, presumably reducible to mathematics. But if that is the case you have been unable to explain why matter can do things that mathematics can't, such as perform calculations that INTEL can make money off of. >> 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* > .” > > >That is another quote. My quote is from a letter to Besso’s wife after > his death. The two citations are correct. > That famous letter was written to Michele Besso's family and the entire quote is: "*Michele has left this strange world a little before me. This means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction made between past, present and future is nothing more than a persistent, stubborn illusion.*" Einstein died one month later. Perhaps you were thinking of a letter Einstein wrote a year before in which he said the Bible was " *pretty childish*". He also said: “*If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it.*” If that's what the word means, but of course it isn't, then I'm religious too. *>> 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. > > > > So we agree. > For one nanosecond we agree but it won't last long because we can't even agree on the meaning of very common English words and you insist on inventing a new language that nobody but you has bothered to learn. To make things even worse you don't even bother to invent new words but instead steal words already in use by English that mean entirely different things. *> Theology is used in* [...] > Forget it, I have no desire to learn Brunospeak. > > *People saying that they have no religion, or that theology is a nonsense* > No, they are simply speaking in English not Brunospeak >> 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. > > *> Give me a mean to recognise a program computing the factorial function.* > A good start would be to input 14 and see if the output is 87,178,291,200. > *> Please reread the definition of machine, programs, words, etc.* > As I said, I have known what the definition of those words are in English for many decades and I don't give a hoot in hell what they mean in Brunospeak. > > >> >>>> 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. > > *> Any one proving the same theorems as PA, or ZF.etc* > There are an infinite number of mathematical statements, since the 1950's we've had Turing Machines that could prove some of them but not all. Does it have to prove the Riemann hypothesis or P=NP? How many internal states does the Turing Machine you're talking about need? By "etc" do you mean the particular axiomatic system used in the proof is not important? > > Wait for the glossary, > A glossary would not be needed it you just wrote in a language where words meant what a common dictionary says they mean and that was used by more than one person. > > You can't even tell me how many states a 2 symbol Turing Machine would >> be needed to become a Löbian machine > > > *> Once you know how to write the programs, (which is very easy in Prolog, > just copy the axioms), you know that a Turing machine will do the task.* > Then stop procrastinating and tell me how many states a 2 symbol Turing Machine would need to become a Löbian machine. And now that you've narrowed things down to just an astronomically huge number tell me which one is actually a Löbian machine and how I can tell if it's working properly. > *> Have you read “Forevery undecided “ by Raymond Smullyan as I suggested? > * > I read that decades ago long before I ever heard of you. >> Those "mathematical objects" have no effect whatsoever on the physical >> world, > > > *> I don’t assume a physical world, * > That's OK, the physical world just continues on making calculations and making money for INTEL regardless of if you assume it or not. And that is something pure mathematics can not do. 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/CAJPayv1-ojBAmMs5QMriSTvX-Z5xGn2yJQLFy7MiYoRybDmuNg%40mail.gmail.com.
