On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:04 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *A Turing machine is a set of quintuplets.* >> > > >>No it is not. > > >I*t is the official definition. * > I don't know what official you're referring to but I do know that definitions can't compute, not even official definitions. Only physical machines can compute. > > t*he Turing machine is one among many mathematical definition of > computability and computable function.* > I have a modest proposal, stop the endless gabble about definitions and start talking about something that can actually compute. Definitions can't compute, not even mathematical definitions. Only physical machines can compute. > *It can be (and has been) proved equivalent with Church’s formalism, * > You can follow the proof step by step but at the end you don't have a deep understanding of exactly what has been proved. It has been proven that there is a consistent translation between the ASCII characters of Lambda calculus and the ASCII characters that describe the operation of a physical Turing Machine in the language of mathematics. But proofs can't calculate and neither can ASCII characters or formalisms or translations. Only Physical Turing Machines can make calculations that are not metaphysical phantoms and can actually *do" things, like mine Bitcoins that can buy stuff. > *Trivially, it cannot calculate physically, but as you know, I do not > assume the physical, nor can I.* > I don't care what you assume because assumptions can't compute, Physical Turing Machines can. >> And thermodynamic equations can not produce work either, you need a >> diesel engine for that. Explanations are very nice but explanations can't >> calculate or do work. But physical machines can. > > > > I*n a physical world, * > That's all I need to prove that mathematics without the help of physics doesn't have a hope of explaining the physical world, that's why physicists have to perform experiments. > *but we cannot assume this when doing metaphysics with the scientific > method.* > Direct experience outranks even the scientific method and only physical reality can provide that, in fact that's what "physical" means. And the trouble with your metaphysics is you ignore inductive reasoning entirely. > >>>> 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. * >> > >>That would explain why I'm not super mega ultra rich, I believe in >> theology X, but unlike me you believe in theology Y, unlike me you believe >> that calculations can be made without matter or energy, > > *> For the simple reason that the notion of computation has been defined > mathematically, without any physical assumption.* > To hell with definitions and to hell with assumptions. If the above utter nonsense was anywhere even close to being true you should not only be a Bitcoin billionaire you should be God. And all the assumptions and all the definitions in the world will not alter the fact that you and not a billionaire and you are not God. *> The standard model of Arithmetic implements all computations, in the > precise (and purely mathematical) sense of implementation.* > And ANY purely mathematical implementation of computation can only produce phantom metaphysical calculations that are worthless because they can *do" precisely NOTHING. > >> so why aren't you a Bitcoin billionaire? In fact why aren't you a God? >> Because phantom metaphysical calculations are not nearly as good as real >> calculations made with Physical Turing Machines. > > > *> You assume “physical” = “primitively real”.* > That's why I'm neither a Bitcoin billionaire or God, however you don't make that assumption and you are unable to explain why you're not both. >> I maintain that is something works it works and if something doesn't >> work it doesn't work, > > *> I would hardly contest this.* > But you do contest this! If I attempt to buy a Bitcoin with a real calculation made with a Physical Turing Machine it works. If I attempt to buy a Bitcoin with a metaphysical phantom calculation made from pure mathematics without the help of physics it DOES NOT WORK. And yet bizarrely you claim these 2 things are equivalent. > >> and I further maintain that is not an assumption that is a fact. > > > > *Even tautological.* > Yes, and the great thing about tautologies is they're always true and usually they are not controversial, but in this case it is, at least for you. >> And making a calculation without matter that obeys the laws of physics >> does not work. > > > *> The version of John Clark, implemented at the relevant level in > arithmetic, will say the same thing, yet are clearly wrong. * > No version of John Clark would say something that worked was equivalent to something that didn't work unless that version had received massive brain damage. > How could a “physical universe” makes a computation more real than > another? > To prove that a calculation made with a Physical Turing Machine can do things that a calculation made with a purely mathematical Turing Machine can not do I am not required to explain how that difference came about , I am only required to prove that it exists, to prove that the two are not equivalent. And I have done that with an example; one can buy a Bitcoin and one can not. So the physical computation is more real than the phantom metaphysical one regardless of if the physical is at the fundamental level of reality or not. 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/CAJPayv0SSTHf9jwb-Cea1SftH9a%2B_NrSg%2B4YGMYrL1cQpL2e%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
