> On 23 Jul 2019, at 00:32, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:15 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> I don't care if you assume "primary matter" or not regardless of what that > >> piece of philosophical gobbledygook happens to mean today. I am just > >> telling you that matter is needed to mine Bitcoins that you can use to buy > >> stuff. > > > Relatively to us, no-one doubt this, > > Then there is at least one thing that a Turing Machine can do that Lambda > Calculus or Turing quintuplets can not do, and there is no doubt about it. So > stop pretending that Turing quintuplets are more profound than Turing > Machines, the oposite is true.
A Turing machine is a set of quintuplets. A head + a tape might implements physically a Turing machine, but the result is a particular case of Turing machine: it is a physical implementation of a Turing machine. > > >> A Bitcoin that can be used to buy a car is real, and a calculation used to > >> mine that Bitcoin is more real than a calculation that lacks this Bitcoin > >> mining car buying property. > > > In your theology. > > So let me see if I've got this straight. If I believe in theology X then I'll > need about half a ton of expensive hardware and many megawatt hours of > electricity to mine even a few Bitcoins that I can use to buy stuff; but if I > convert to "theology" Y then I can mine Bitcoins with no hardware at all and > won't need one single watt of electricity. That would be like a program/subject exploiting the infinite computations emulating it below its substitution level. Yes we do that, necessarliyly so, in arithmetic and provably in the Mechanist theory). It looks weird, but is not weirder than Quantum physics. On the contrary it explains that weird “many-histories” aspect of Nature. > And as a bonus if I change the "theology" I believe in I will not only get > rich I'll change the very laws of physics. And I wouldn't even have to go as > far as to change my "religion", I could just change an assumption and a > definition or two and presto change-o I'm more powerful then God. > > I conclude from your usage that I still don't know what "theology" means in > Brunospeak and please don't crank out yet another definition of it because > you've just given me an example and examples are far more powerful than > definitions. But I have learned that whatever the meaning of that word is in > Brunospeak it has absolutely nothing to do with the English meaning of the > word, and the same holds true for "assumption" and "religion”. Yes. In science we redefine all words, because the informal mundane sense is not enough precise. >>> > Why to make that assumption, >> >> What assumption? > > That the God Matter is primitively real. > > The first problem is you don't know what the word "assumption" means in > English. I don’t see an argument. Nor even an example, or any clues to suggest this. You can identify “assumption", “hypothesis", “theory", and eventually even “body”, “number”, etc. I use the terms in their larger sense, and made them more precise driven by the reasoning. This allows to avoid the 1004 fallacy (if you remember this). > The second problem is I don't know what "God Matter" means in Brunospeak; > for a while I thought I almost sorta understood what "primitively real" meant > in your strange language but then from your usage it was obvious the meaning > had mutated away once more to a unknown place, so now I'm back to square one. God is define by the Reality we hope exists, and which would be the reason of all sort of realities we can encounter, from matter to sensations. The God of the materialist is some primitive material reality, but a mechanist cannot invoke this without ascribing to the mind magical abilities (making some computation more “real” than others. The God of Mechanism is conceptually the simplest one: the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality, or the partial computable truth, or the Universal Dovetailing, etc. I keep the me definition, but change the images to avoid boring repetitions and to help to understand the meaning, which is vocabulary independent. Unlike Bruce’s materialism, your materialist position is inconsistent, as you defend Mechanism together with materialism, but then you have to explain how matter makes some computation real, and some not. In fact, in metaphysics, you cannot invoke the word “real”, “true” or any god’s name. 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/CAJPayv2dBQzVWTdDOSCXQOSL0x%3DYP6fJ_RE9bwdLZd4Y5PTQUA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2dBQzVWTdDOSCXQOSL0x%3DYP6fJ_RE9bwdLZd4Y5PTQUA%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/B56B9A17-161C-433E-A876-EE3294E3D1F5%40ulb.ac.be.
