The quote are not correct. The format is hard to manage. I try, but apology if I missed some of your point.
> On 14 Jul 2019, at 12:31, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bruno Marchal Wrote: > > > 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. What precisely? With mechanism, physics comes from the first person indeterminacy, which is already not Turing emulable per se (without emulating the multiplication of the observers). So, physics, indeed, can clearly do something that mathematics cannot do, but that does not mean that such a something is not explainable by mathematics. The ambiguous term is “do” here. >>> > >>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. I recall the definition of a Turing machine: it is a set of quadruples. There is no tape needed, except as a pedagogical tool. There is no assumption about atoms, or time, space, etc. Chapter 4 of the Dover book on computability by Martin Davis, makes this mathematically clear in his chapter four, by embedding rigorously the definition and theory of the Turing machine in arithmetic. >> > 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. Not at all. Gödel already knew that his own notion of computability was arithmetical. But he thought it was not *universal*? After reading Turing’s paper, he got that his own definition of computable was universal, but then he can be said that Gödel is the first to get the idea that computation and computability are purely arithmetical notion. > 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. But then, automatically you can implement the Church lambda expression too. There is a recursive (computable) isomorphism between all programming language or Turing complete system. The Church’s lambda expressions can emulate any Turing machine, and vice versa. That is how programming language works. > You can't do any lambda Calculus unless you've already got a working Turing > Machine to do it on. You can implement lambda calculus directly into a Suze- von Neumann register machine. The physical computers are such register machine, not Turing machine. All universal system are equivalents, with respect to computability (not provability, which will distinguish the persons). >> > 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. Do you or not believe in irreducible physical reality? It seems so when you argue, like above, that a computation is real only if implemented in that “physical reality”. >> > Aristotle theology is what I called [...] > Sorry, I just can't keep up with the changing meaning of "Aristotle theology”. ICome on John. I have use that expression always with the same meaning. It is the belief in the second God, like some called it: the clearly most fundamental belief of Aristotle: a primary material/physical universe. Aristotle is the inventor of that hypothesis, although some could argue that Democritus was close, and some others. But my point is not historical, and even Aristotle begun to doubt it in his “metaphysics”. Yet, Christinaism will erase all doubt, and makes (weak) materialism into a dogma. >> > 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. No problem with this. >>> >>> 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. The point is not that he has to verify this, just to take into account he has not verify this. >> >> 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. Nor with this. Good! Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv18dE6-BO18_cYpaEyPMEbuwSksmVXX2yUZmMr-r59GMw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv18dE6-BO18_cYpaEyPMEbuwSksmVXX2yUZmMr-r59GMw%40mail.gmail.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/367E4FBA-2CA7-4312-BE2B-E3ABD7194212%40ulb.ac.be.
