On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:19 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, everybody can find prime numbers because every*BODY* has a body made > if matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > *> That makes a human body able to find some prime number, but the prime > number notion is not transformed into a physical notion through this. * > Without the notion of multiplication and division "a prime number" would have no meaning, and multiplication and division is something ONLY physics can do. > *> Same with computation.* > Yep. > *> All the proposition making some computation into arithmetical existence > are true, independently of the laws of physics,* > Without physics no statement in arithmetic would be true and none would be false either, they would just be meaningless squiqles. > *> like the arithmetical proposition making 17 into a prime number, do not > depends on human existence.* > It doesn't depend on humans but it does depend on matter and the laws of physics as that is the only thing that can perform a calculation, and without computation nothing could be said about 17 being prime, in fact nothing could be said about the number 17 at all because it would be meaningless gibberish. > *> **Insects have used the primality of 13 and 17 well before human did > mathematics, for example.* > Insects are made of matter and they obey 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 > > > *Not at all. The elementary textbook just explain in detail that the > notion of computation is available in arithmetic,* > Explanations are a human invention that benefit only them, explanations can not compute. > * > You will need physical laws only to implement some computation > physically;* > Translation from the original bafflegab: You only need physical laws if you want something more than a pretend toy calculation. >> When it comes to discerning the difference between a real calculation > and ridiculous phantom calculations your confusion is epic. > > *> Use of “real” is invalid here.* > I don't know how to be clearer or more unambiguous. As I've said more than once, a real calculation can be used to buy a Bitcoin but your pretend phantom calculations lack that property. > *>>> 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. > > *> Yes, but you cannot deduce from this that a mathematical structure > cannot emulate a computation. * > Speak for yourself. Maybe you lack the ability to deduce the fact that a non physical thing can't emulate a computer or emulate anything else but I'm smart enough to have figured it out; and I'm not bragging because it takes very little brain power to figure it out. > *> Indeed, all models of the arithmetical theories emulate, in the precise > sense of Church, Turing and Co.* > Models can't compute and neither can theories, only Physical Turing Machines can compute. > *> A mathematical structure is not to be confused with the language > describing that mathematical structure.* > Mathematical structures can't compute, only Physical Turing Machines can compute. *> The arithmetical truth os independent of all theories build to explore > it.* > I agree, so stop talking about theories making calculations. >> And the ONLY way to make a calculation is with matter that obeys the > laws of physics. > > > *That is the only way to make a physical computation.* > Without physics all you've got is pretend toy calculations, and they're just silly. >> 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. > > *> But the computation exists in arithmetic, independently of its > emulation by a physical processor, like we can be sure that there is a > prime number bigger than 10^(10^1000), independently of the fact that we > might perhaps never find it.* > It has been proven that the truth or falsehood of the Continuum hypothesis makes no difference to our current set theory; and in a similar way if the entire multiverse lacks the resources to calculate a prime number bigger than *10^(10^1000)*, and it probably does, then the existence or nonexistence of that enormous number has nothing to do with reality. >> 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. > > *> Of course, they already know, and use this all the time. It is a > primitive of all assembly language.* > There is nothing more useless than an assembly language program and no hardware to run it on. > > *you cannot know if you are not also the product of some computation in > arithmetic* > I and my entire world might be a simulation, but if so I am NOT the product of a computation in arithmetic, I am the product of a computation made in a Physical Turing Machine because matter that obeys the laws of physics can change but arithmetic lacks that ability and you can't have computation without change. 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/CAJPayv3Jaddnaae8uhJorgphj5jpuwAU2Eqz%3D1i%2Bb59ntmDRZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
