> On 14 Jul 2019, at 23:46, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
Mishmash =ad hominem. But more seriously I can’t make sense of what you say. It is only the primitive matter which is assumed in (weak) materialism. It does not exist with Mechanism, and it is only the *appearances* of matter which is 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. But this is what I explain. “The appearance of matter” is explained by the first person indeterminacy on all computations going through my actual states. This explains matter, (perhaps wrongly, but that remains to be seen or verified) and we got already the explanation why it does much more than number and computations, indeed, it looks like it runs an infinity of computations, something arguably confirmed by the discovery of quantum mechanics. > > >> 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.” I stand corrected. It is rather coherent with Einstein’s physicalism. Note at least he was aware that physicalism was a religion. But that is another point. My source was not reliable, and it was the citation corrected above that he wrote to Besso. Sorry. > > 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”. Einstein was against dogma, especially religious dogma. But it took Gödel to eventually made Eisntein realising that mathematics was not a language, and could attract people interested in fundamental questioning. Yet, he was always aware that his belief in a physical universe, and his feeling that it was amenable to reason, was a sort of faith. > 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.” Yes. > > If that's what the word means, but of course it isn't, then I'm religious too. I have never doubt this. But Einstein was not dogmatic on this. He was religious like a neoplatonist. No dogma, but theories that we can test? Now, Einstein was not interested in consciousness and theology, and unlike Gödel, was not interested in attempting to introduce rigour in theology. > >> >> 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. The exact contrary. I am an ultra-conservative. I use the language of those who invented science, and never sold any of its branche to political power. We have lost this in 529, where the “doubters”, especially in theology where exiled, banished, killed, etc. You call it “brunospeak” just because you seem to never have read even one platonician. You are more annoyed when we agree that when you disagree, which says something on your (religious?) agenda. > 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. That is what I criticise in the insttionalised religion in occident. They took the theories of the greeks, unfortunately the incorrect one (with respect mechanism) and made the fairy tales, the dogma, and the violent radicalism, like the soviet did with biology and matter, actually. You defend that stealing by the pseudo-religion. You confirm my thesis that atheism is the protector of the christian religious dogma. You forbid the change of their definition, when in science, we change the definition rompers to papers, all the time. > > > 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. And if after a billions year we still don’t have the output? And how could you be sure it will be correct on the factorial of 87,178,291,200. By Rice theorem, the set of number i, such that phi_i(x) = factorial(x) is a non computable set. There is no algorithmic mean to get the semantic of a program from its code. > > > 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. In this case, it is not my speak, but the speak of computer science. >> >> >>>> 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. You make non relevant and distracting remark. See my French long version for LISP programs illustrating this, or read the combinators thread to see how to build combinators doing this. A Löbian combinator, or a Löbian Turing machine is a long and hideous, but very easy exercise. > > > Have you read “Forevery undecided “ by Raymond Smullyan as I suggested? > > I read that decades ago long before I ever heard of you. So you might have know what is a löbian machine long after knowing may work. It is a very standard notion, so important that there are no two books given them the same name. All formal theory extending any essentially undecidable theory is Löbian. The Uniform reflexive Wagner structure are Löbian, the boolean tops with naturel number-objevt are Löbian. I nice definition, easy to use in our context, is that a machine is Löbian if it can prove all statement with the shape A -> []A, with A being an arbitrary sigma_1 arithmetical sentences. A simple (and larger) definition is any machine close for the Löb rule of inference []A -> A / A. Löb’s original theorem is that PA is close for that rule. It solved a question auld by Henkin which was “GOdel’s sentences, asserting their non provability in PA (or PM, ZF, …) are true and non provable (assuming PA, ZF, … consistent), what can we say about the sentences asserting their provability? That is not entirely obvious, and Löb’s answer was that they are all true (and thus provable). In contrast, sentence affirming they are sigma_1-true are usually false, although some can be true. > > >> 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. I just said that I do not assume a physical world. Obviously, I do believe in a physical universe, even more so when I derive its existence/appearance from arithmetic. You cannot do money, or energy with pure mathematics, but with mechanism, the point is that mathematics can explain why we do sharable dreams in which we have the experience of money and energy. 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/CAJPayv1-ojBAmMs5QMriSTvX-Z5xGn2yJQLFy7MiYoRybDmuNg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1-ojBAmMs5QMriSTvX-Z5xGn2yJQLFy7MiYoRybDmuNg%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/906155A7-3D4A-4F1F-9011-9A052C8F2AE3%40ulb.ac.be.
