On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Which World? >> >> >>The only one I know for a fact to exist. > > > *> Nobody can know that a world exist.* > Does anybody know what "exists" means? *> Of course, we all agree that some reality has to exist,* > And everybody experiences a world so that world exists, that is if the word "exists" has any meaning. And don't talk to me about illusion because illusions exist. >> Yes, and a damn fine argument that is too. Another name for it is "The >> Scientific Method" which has worked out rather well for us in the past. > > > *> Unfortunately the use of the knocking table argument has been debunked > already by Plato* > And even if I knew nothing else that would immediately tell me that Plato's debunking had itself been debunked sometime in the last 500 years because Plato, just like the other ancient Greek philosophers, didn't know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground. >> Reasoning is entirely dependent on a brain made of matter that obeys the >> laws of physics. > > > *> Assuming primitive matter.* > Oh for god's sake, what does that have to do with it?! The brain can think but it's certainly not primitive matter, it's made of neurons. And neurons are not primitive matter, they're made of organic molecules. And organic molecules are not primitive matter, they're made of atoms. And atoms are not primitive matter, they're made of subatomic particles. And subatomic particles are not primitive matter, they're made of quarks and gluons. And quarks and gluons may or may not be primitive matter nobody knows, but for the purposes of our discussion it doesn't matter (pun intended) because whatever else they may be we know one thing for sure, they can't think, they display as much intelligent behavior as a sack full of doorknobs. > *>>> observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some >>> set of them.* >> >> >> Mathematical relations between what? > > > Numbers and set of numbers. > Rather like the relative literary relationship between a set of characters in a Harry Potter novel. > > Nobody knows for a fat that a material world exist, even the > arithmetical world. > Meaning needs contrast. If nothing exists then "exists" means the same thing that "Klogknee" does, absolutely nothing. So the word needs to be anchored at some point and nobody on this list, or anyplace else, has proposed a better place than the physical world we know to exist to anchor and calibrate the word. >> you've got the mathematical equivalent of a Harry Potter novel. > > > *> Nonsense. * > You've been using that one word as your only rebuttal quite a lot lately, if you're not doing it just because you can't think of anything else to say then please elaborate. > *> In the post 529 christian theology* [...] > You just never stop with that crap! Bruno, lots of interesting things have happened since 529. And none of them involved theology. > >>>> The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and >>> if something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with >>> the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work. >> >> >> *>>> How do you know that?* >> > >>Inductive reasoning, the same way people know most things. > > > *> That is good for all FAPP, but non sensical when doing metaphysics* > So I have to choose either Inductive reasoning or metaphysics. Well that's a no-brainer if there ever was one! I choose Inductive reasoning because it's even more important than deductive reasoning. > *with the scientific attitude.* > Bruno, are you trying to tell me with a straight face that the scientific method doesn't involve Inductive reasoning? > Typically, induce reasoning is not able to make a statement true. That is > very elementary epistemology. > That's why science can never say theory X is absolutely true, but it can say theory X is less untrue than theory Y; sometimes they can even say it's astronomically less but they can never say infinitely less. > *> The only implementation of Turing machine, in their precise > mathematical sense, are in the classroom.* > BULLSHIT. That's like saying the only implementation of a diesel engine is in an engineering classroom teaching thermodynamics. A physical hurricane is more profound than a computer model of one and a physical Turing Machine is more profound than a mathematical description of one in a textbook. *>>> Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and >>> again.* >> >> >>Means? Meaning requires intelligence, before Evolution invented brains >> things happened and did stuff but nothing meant anything. Humans are in the >> meaning conferring business not rocks, we can give meaning to a rock but a >> rock can't give meaning to us. I think you're the one that's very confused. > > > *> Distracting comment unrelated to the point.* > Unrelated? You're the one who mentioned "means". You're the one who keeps talking about the difference between a ASCII sequence and what that ASCII sequence "means". > > When you have a Turing universal machinery, you have a Turing machine, > You don't unless the machine is made of matter and isn't just printed on the pages of a textbook. > *I guess you mean “a real Turing machine”,* > I mean a Physical Turing Machine. *> but invoking “real” is not better than invoking God* > That would be true if God could make calculations but there is precisely zero evidence He can even add 2+2, however there is overwhelming evidence that a Physical Turing Machine can. Therefore a Physical Turing Machine is astronomically less unreal than God. 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/CAJPayv1U9ewmt73zJrPyX4Mk%3Dxcad3S87DxhpvM2PrE86Ck73Q%40mail.gmail.com.
