On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:36 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> *> In what sense a “model” would not compute?* > In the sense that inductive reasoning is at least as important as deductive reasoning and in the sense that nobody in the history of the world has ever been able to provide an example of a model that can compute without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > In what sense the model of arithmetic would compute less than a physical > universe. > In the sense that the physical universe can make a calculation so real that you can buy a Bitcoin with it but "the model of arithmetic" can NOT. > we need the second to define what is a machine. > Forget definitions they're secondary, examples are far more fundamental and astronomically more profound. > *In serious theology* [...] > That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because in the past nothing of intelligence has ever followed that word and I believe in the value of inductive reasoning. >>True? Without computation "2+2=4 is true" would not be a fact > > > *> That is a bit ridiculous. The arithmetical truth has been discovered > and studied since Pythagorus * > Pythagorus was a man. Pythagorus made a calculation to determine 2+2=4 is true. Only a Physical Turing Machine can make a calculation. Therefore a man is a Physical Turing Machine. > > *the fact that 2+2=4 is independent of the notion of computation* > If so then "2+2" means nothing. Without computation the "+" is just a meaningless squiggle. And please don't start telling me what it can be defined as because you're never going to figure out the nature of reality by dreaming up new definitions. >> and it would be neither true or false, it would be meaningless >> gibberish; and only a Physical Turing Machine can make a calculation. > > > *> The use of gibberish shows that you are still confusing a true fact > (the fact that the sum of two with two is four) * > Sum? The *SUM* of the two?! Independent of computation?! Something around here does not compute. >> Turing Machines give meaning to "compute" and they can do something FAR >> more profound than give a definition, they can provide an example. > > > > *No, more, no less than anything denoted by a syntactical term in a > Turing-complete theory.* > Then provide an EXAMPLE ( and please dear god not another definition!) of a "syntactical term in a Turing-complete theory" that can, without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics, make a computation that is so real you can buy a Bitcoin with it. Obviously you can't do it nor can anybody else. I don't claim this inability proves that physics is at the fundamental level of reality but it does prove it's closer to that level than pure mathematics. > You remind me that you have not answer my question in your comments. > It sounds to me that even you don't remember what question you're referring too. *> If the “phantom” computation, that is, the person supported by some > arithmetical computation, are not conscious, * > I know for certain that some things behave intelligently and some things don't, but when it comes to consciousness there is only one thing I know with absolute certainty to be conscious, and that is all I'll ever know. That's why real scientists make intelligence theories, dilettantes make consciousness theories. > *you need to explain the role of your primitive-ontological matter in > consciousness.* > To win a debate with you over the nature of computation I am not required to say anything about consciousness, I mean it's not as if you've ever said anything enlightening about it. 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/CAJPayv2PwRgVyT9iOMZ_oBAxth7O2druZW2937yXg9S2KLuZaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
