On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:24 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>As I said in my previous post, it's easy to translate Turing's idea into >> mathematics that is just as abstract as Church's lambda calculus and just >> as incapable of actually *doing* anything; however unlike Church Turing can >> do more than that, Turing's idea can also be incorporated into physics and >> then and only then can you *do" something with the calculation . A >> "Lambda Machine" is just as fictitious as a "Löbian machine", but Turing >> Machines are real, I'm using one right now. > > > *> Do is ambiguous, * > Nothing ambiguous about it. If INTEL wishes calculations to *do* something, like make money for example, then only matter can *do* those calculations. > > *and a Truing machine is as much mathematical than a lambda expression.* > A Turing Machine is compatible with both pure mathematics and pure physics, but Lambda Calculus is compatible only with pure mathematics. *> Imagine that you are in a video game. In that game you have to build a > city and *do* many things, like collecting taxes, [...] In that case you > can see that although you need to do work, and manipulate some apparent > matter to do apparent money, it does not need to exist.* > Bitcoins exist. > Unless … you tell me that we need some matter to make that happening I am telling you that matter is needed to make that happen, in this case the matter in the microprocessor of the computer that is running the video game that is using Bitcoins as money. *> accompany by genuine consciousness,* Consciousness? What the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs? > > *or doing some work to earn money, which is of course virtual by > construction here.* > Money is whatever fungible thing that people in a society agree has worth. In general people have not agreed that money used in a video game has worth unless it happens to be Bitcoins, Ethereum, Ripple or some other well known Cryptocurrency. But Bitcoin mining software printed in a book can generate no money (if it could Bitcoin would suffer a rather serious inflation problem) it must be incorporated into a computer made of matter before that software can *do* anything. > *Now, the whole video game is executed through pure number relation* > Incorrect. The whole video game is executed through voltage differences in the microprocessor. We can use the language of mathematics to help us understand how those voltage differences effect each other, and we can if we wish interpret those voltage differences as numbers. *> Church would not have claimed that his lambda calculus defined all > computable functions* That's why Godel thought Turing's work was superior to Church's and even Church admitted that: *"Computability by a Turing machine has the advantage of making the identification with effectiveness in the ordinary (not explicitly defined) sense evident immediately."* > >> A Turing Machine can do Lambda Calculus but Lambda Calculus can't even >> add 2+2 without the help of a Turing Machine. > > > > See the combinator thread for a precise disproof of this. > Ah yes, that legendary post of yours that plugs all the holes in your theory and proves that everything I've said is wrong, the post that you've been talking about for the better part of a decade, the post that NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN. > *You assume that there is an irreducible (and of course Turing universal) > material reality.* > See my precise disproof of this in my own legendary post. >> Sure, As I said, a Turing Machine can do Lambda Calculus and a Von >> Neumann computer is a Turing Machine, > > > > *> Strictly speaking, no. A von Neumann computer is better seen as a > boolean graph,* > *BULLSHIT!* The logical operation of every computer ever made can be reduced to a Turing Machine. > * > with a delay and splitting instructions. By the complier theorem, they > are recursively isomorphic, with the Turing formalism, but as much than > with lambda expression, post production system, Conway’s game of life,* > The first program I ever wrote was an implementation of Conway’s game of life and I debugged it and ran it on a Turing Machine. >>but without that Turing Machine the Lambda Calculus will *do* precisely >> nothing. > > > *> They do exactly the same computations,* > Without a Turing Machine Lambda Calculus can't *do* diddly-squat, it's just a sequence of ASCII characters printed in a book doing no calculations or anything else except gather dust. Even Alonzo Church admitted that but you cannot. > >>Bruno I can honestly say if you've mentioned a "second God" before I do >> not recall it. And please don't tell me what that is because I've given up, >> I just can't keep up with the changing meaning of "Aristotle theology” > > > *>Just find one post where I would have said something different about > Aristotle theology,* > Ironically to rebut my accusation that you keep changing the meaning of "Aristotle theology" you introduced the concept of "Aristotle's second God"; I've never heard anybody mention that before, but I admit you know more about Greek silly ideas than I 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Vj4yOCUzQQ28WfJUZLxcWKA9zSb_CZL6eWGBc__B%3DUw%40mail.gmail.com.
