On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:01 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does anybody know what "exists" means? > > > *> Perhaps we don’t, and that is why I ask people to formalise their idea > in first order logic, so we can move forward without any metaphysical > baggage. * Bruno, you can't specify the referent in the numerous personal pronouns used in your thought experiments, and you place great emphasis on phantom calculations that can't be detected by anyone or anything. So don't talk to me about "metaphysical baggage"! >> everybody experiences a world > > > *> Everybody experiences consciousness, but "experiencing a world” is non > sensical.* > Experiencing a world means experiencing the things in that world. What else could it mean? Hammers exist in our world, if your hit your finger with one you will experience pain. > > Y*ou can experience the appearance of a world, and that does not prove > its existence, * > How would the appearance of a world that existed differ from a world that did not exist? If there is no difference then the word "existence" means precisely nothing. > *as the dreams illustrates.* > Dreams exist. >> so that world exists, that is if the word "exists" has any meaning. > > > > *That is why the theology* [...] > And that us my cue to stop reading the paragraph because nothing of interest has ever come after you've used that word. >> And don't talk to me about illusion because illusions exist. > > > *> Illusions exists, but usually, the object of the illusion does not.* > That's because things would be different if the object of illusions did exist, when you woke up from a nightmare the monster would still be around. So the words "existence" and "nonexistence" have meaning in this context. >> 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. > > > *> No problem, but with mechanism, we can go further and say that the > quarks and gluons are not primate matter, because they are invariant for > the all universal numbers.* > And numbers are invariant for all quarks and gluons. So what? I don't care what's fundamental I care what can calculate and numbers can't but matter can if it is organized in such a way that its logical operation can be reduced to a Turing Machine. > >>> Numbers and set of numbers. > > >> Rather like the relative literary relationship between a set of > characters in a Harry Potter novel. > > *> If that was the case, we would not promise a million of dollars to > solve the arithmetical Riemann hypothesis, or the twin conjectures. * > It's not easy to write a fictional book as popular as a Harry Potter novel, if it was we'd have a lot more than a million dollars, we'd all be as rich as JK Rowling. Sometimes it can be very difficult to write good mathematical fiction too, the type that can entertain mathematicians. > *> There is no unreasonable applications of Harry Potter novel in physics,* > That's because a novel can be entertaining and consistent (have no plot holes) and be fictional and written in the language of English, and this would be of no use to Physics. The same thing would be true of fiction written in the language of mathematics even if it had no plot holes. > *> It is the mark of the con man to asserts that they know what “really > exist”.* > It is the mark of the con man to assert that something no person and no thing can detect "really exists”, phantom calculations for example. > >>So I have to choose either Inductive reasoning or metaphysics. > > > *> That does not follow at all. You need only to do metaphysics with the > inductive (and deceptive) * > Metaphysics with both inductive and deductive reasoning is just plain old vanilla physics. Pure mathematics like number theory may be able to limp along with just deductive reasoning (although even here they often would not know which of the infinite number of mathematical statements they should even try to prove) but with science you've got to have both types of reasoning or you end up with junk science, for example metaphysics. > > >> 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. > > > *> But the *apparent* existence of a physical Turing machine is explained > in pure arithmetic,* > Thermodynamic explanations of how a diesel engine operates is for our benefit only, it doesn't help the engine. Explanations can't calculate, and neither can definitions or assumptions or theories or numbers or textbooks. Only Turing Machines can calculate. > *“Printed in a textbook” is different from “emulated in the model of > arithmetic”.* > Without a Physical Turing Machine nothing can emulate anything. Turing Machines can *do* arithmetic but arithmetic can't *do* emulations or anything else. > *>>> 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, > > *> Which God?* > God in which language, English or Brunospeak? 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/CAJPayv1sYv2av22hxZcAx3qrv3z9r4M_tz6B8THhqUC%3DX_F1%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
