On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:55 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> If nobody can find a computation that is not realized by some physical > object, and nobody can, > > *> Everybody can do that, in the samùesense that everybody can find a > prime number.* > Yes, everybody can find prime numbers because every*BODY* has a body made if matter that obeys the laws of physics. *>A computation can be realised physically, but also arithmetically, as > shown in all elementary textbook.* > Oh god here we go again!! Here we go with elementary textbooks making physically realizable calculations that for some never explained reason INTEL and its competitors have never taken advantage of even though the technique would make them masters of the universe. *> I do not assume the existence of the physical object,* > That's OK, physical objects don't care if you assume them or not, they just keep on doing what they do. > > *that is insisting on your confusion between computation and physical > computations. * > When it comes to discerning the difference between a real calculation and ridiculous phantom calculations your confusion is epic. > >> Mathematical language can describe a computation > > *> Sure. But a computation is not the same as a description of > computation,* > I know, that was my point. The Mathematical language can describe a calculation but it can not make a calculation anymore than the English language can produce a flesh and blood cat from the letters C, A and T. > *> like the fact that 1 + 1 is 2 is different from the sequence of symbols > "1 + 1 is 2”.* > "1+1=2" is what a computation produces, and that is the ONLY reason it is a fact. And the ONLY way to make a calculation is with matter that obeys the laws of physics. Actually it's even more restrictive than that, the matter must be organized in certain specific ways to make a calculation, if you organize it in the form of a logic textbook it won't work, if you organize it in the form of a Silicon Microprocessor it will. >> just as the English language can describe a cat, but the three letter > English word "cat" is not an animal and is not alive. > > *> Yes, some language used in mathematics can describe a computation, but > that does not make a* > *computation the same as a description of a computation.* > I know, that was my point. *> You confuse again a model and a theory, semantic and syntax, * > You again confuse the fact that the semantic meaning of any language including the Mathematical language ultimately comes from calculation, and the only way to make a calculation is with matter that obeys the laws of physics. *> I think that you are stuck into your idea that mathematics is a > language.* > A language needs a vocabulary and a grammar, and mathematics has both. I am certainly not the first to say that, neither was Galileo who said: "*Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe*". >>The type of Turing Machine that can change with time, that is to say > the type that can actually *do* something, the type that is amenable to > the scientific method, *MUST* be made of matter that obeys the laws > of physics. No exceptions. > > *> Well, I guess, for a believer. I am not.* > Well, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe in both the value of induction and of the Scientific Method. You do not. >> Matter may or may not be the ultimate in primitive, but if matter can do > even one thing that numbers can't (and even you admit that pure numbers > can't generate power but matter can) then matter must be more primitive > than numbers. > > *> Pure numbers cannot generate primitive energy or primitive matter, …, > but who said that such things exist.* > As your body temperature skyrockets from megawatts of electrical power milliseconds after you've been hit by a bolt of lightning it will male little difference if you've said such things can exist or not. *> pure number relations can generate the illusion of primitive energy, * > I have debated philosophy for a long time and I've noticed that nobody uses the word "illusion" in an argument unless they are backed into a corner and are desperate, >> Maybe our world and even we ourselves are all a simulation, but if so the > > the cosmic virtual reality program MUST be running on a computer made > of matter that obeys the laws of physics because matter has one key > attribute that arithmetic lacks, matter can change but arithmetic can't. > And you can't have computation without change. > > > *The change x -> s(x) is quite enough, to explain the psychological > illusion of relative change. * > What you need to do now is write "x -> s(x)" on a postcard and mail it to INTEL, I'm sure they will be very grateful to you for revolutionizing their industry. *> If some “matter” plays a role in computation, then lambda calculus > cannot be Turing universal, nor Turing machine, which are equivalent with > respect to computations and digital processes to lambda calculus.* Bruno, that statement does not make one bit of sense. If lambda calculus is equivalent to a Turing Machine, and it is, then whatever I say about a Turing Machine is equally true for lambda calculus, and I say the only type of Turing Machine that can actually *do* things like make a calculation is one made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. *>There is just no physical postulate in the theory of computability.* > And the theory of computability can not compute anything, no theory can. That's why you need physical Turing Machines like microprocessors that use energy and produce heat if you want to mine for Bitcoins, and that's why textbooks on computer theory can't mine a damn thing. > *You come back with the knocking argument, which has been debunked by the > Indian and greeks amore than 2000 years ago.* > The "knocking argument" is just an insulting name for Induction and the Scientific Method, and if the ancient Greeks had not "debunked" it 2500 years ago Science would not have stagnated for 2000 years. *> I suggest you reread those old text,* > I would rather have my teeth drilled. 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/CAJPayv3nmu_RACsWTYjAsc2yzUG-%3DXjD_9841A0Jf0m86JZ7qw%40mail.gmail.com.
