On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:10 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> * > Already some physicist think that time is an illusion.* > Whenever a philosopher starts throwing around the word "illusion", particularly if the discussion is about subjectivity and consciousness, you know he's running out of ideas. > > *Obviously, in arithmetic, time is a relative concept,* > No! In arithmetic time is not a concept at all and neither is space, but it is in physics. > *> Anyway, I don’t assume a physical reality,* > Yes you do, if you didn't assume the physical you would not exist, you would have been hit by a car decades ago. And thanks to Natural Selection if every single one of your ansestors had not assumed a physical reality you would have never even been born. > > *I will wait your answer to how that matter make a computation more > real than the one already executed in arithmetic* > You're just not paying attention I've answered that same question more than once. Matter can change with time and arithmetic can't. *>>> You can also assume classical logic +* > *1) 0 ≠ s(x)* > *2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)* > *3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) * > *4) x+0 = x* > *5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)* > *6) x*0=0* > *7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x* > > >> Those squiggles are slightly different but I still don't see any > physics in them, and so it still can't change and it still can't compute. > > *> But it does.* > Wow, that's great news! So show me how it works so I can get rich by starting a computer hardware company that needs no hardware. Let's start by you showing me how to use it and only it to compute the ninth prime number larger than 10^100^100. > > > > > > > > *>>> In English:1) 0 is not the successor of a number2) Different numbers > have different successors3) Except for 0, all numbers have a predecessor4) > If you add zero to a number, you get that number5) If you add a number x to > the successor of a number y, you get the successor of x added to y6) If you > multiply a number by 0, you get 07) If you multiply a number x by the > successor of y, you get the number x added to the multiplication of the > number x with yAs everyone can see, there is no physical assumption.* > > >> And as everyone can see there is no computation in the above without > "you" to actually *do* things, and "you" is made of matter that obeys the > laws of physics. > > *> That is simply false.* > I am crushed by your devastating rebuttal. >> Why use different words when it's the same thing? Induction just says > that things usually continue and animals have been making very good use of > that fact for at least 500 million years. For a few hundred years > mathematicians have been using induction to generalize things by saying if > they can prove that something is true for integer n and if they can also > prove its true for integer n+1 then they have proven it is true for ANY > integer larger than n. And that line of reasoning all seems to work very > well; but Bertrand Russell, a man who knew a thing or two about > mathematical logic and induction said: > > *“The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last > wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the > uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken.”* > > > *> Mathematical induction is an axiom in some mathematical theories, like > Peano arithmetic, or ZF, etc There is simple induction and transfinite > inductions. Inductive inference is a technic to infer something about some > reality. Machine’s inductive inference is a branch of IA, practical, and > theoretical.There are obvious relations between both, but they are very > different concepts.* > You speak of several areas where induction is used but apparently there are so many "very different" things about the two types of induction that you are unable to specify a single one. I would really like to know which one does not involve the core concept that things usually continue. > >>> *But there is an infinity of John Clark in arithmetic,* > > >> An infinity? There may or may not be an infinity of John Clarks in the > Multiverse but there is not even one John Clark in arithmetic; > > > Then the digital mechanist hypothesis is false. > OK maybe it is false but I really don't know because I don't know what "digital mechanist hypothesis" means in Brunospeak and I have a strong suspicion you don't either. >> I know this for a fact because I know for a fact that John Clark can > change and I know for a fact that arithmetic can’t. > > *> You confuse Joihn Clark belongs to arithmetic in the relative way, with > John clark is arithmetic. In physics that would be like claiming that you > cannot change because the block universe is static.* > What on earth are you talking about? The block universe is not homogeneous, it is a 4D object, 3 dimensions of space and one of time, and the block universe most certainly does change with time and does so in accordance with General Relativity. And of course the block universe is only an approximation of reality because it completely ignores Quantum Mechanics, a rather significant omission. > > *physics is a real and persistent “illusion” in the mind of the > universal numbers/machines.* > So whenever you get stuck just throw out the word "illusion" and run. > >> I can change and if matter can change by interacting with time and > space then a material Turing Machine can emulate me. > > *> If they exist.* > If you're reading this then right now the proof they exist is LITERALLY right in front of your face because your computer is a material Turing Machine. > > *But the John Clark in arithmetic makes the same reasoning,* > The John Clark in arithmetic does not exist because John Clark can change but arithmetic can't. > *> You have no evidence for a primitive matter,* > You keep talking about that but as far as intelagent behavior and consciousness is concerned I'll be damned if I can see how it makes the slightest difference if matter is primitive or not. Animals are not primitive because they are made of atoms, but that does not change the fact that animals are alive and atoms are not. *> And Turing showed that a lambda expression can emulate all Turing > machine, * > No he did not. A Physical Turing Machine can emulate Lambda Calculus but Lambda Calculus can't emulate a damn thing without getting physical. And that's why Godel thought Turing's work was superior to that of Alonzo Church. Lambda Calculus is just a programing language, it's unique because it's the smallest one known but it's still just a language. Yes Lambda Calculus can represent any Turing Machine but in much the same way that the English word C-A-T symbolizes a particular mammalian animal, but C-A-T is not a cat. It reminds me of the painting by René Magritte: This Is Not A Pipe <https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F022%2F133%2Fthe-treachery-of-images-this-is-not-a-pipe-1948(2).jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fknowyourmeme.com%2Fmemes%2Fthis-is-not-a-pipe-parodies&docid=PCSXETu4Krm7NM&tbnid=p6wbf0dHyaczMM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjS4LHiwf3jAhUBQ60KHYEoCJAQMwiNASgCMAI..i&w=1442&h=1005&bih=746&biw=1463&q=%22this%20is%20not%20a%20pipe%22%20Ren%C3%A9%20Magritte.&ved=0ahUKEwjS4LHiwf3jAhUBQ60KHYEoCJAQMwiNASgCMAI&iact=mrc&uact=8> >> Davis “computability and unsolvability” chapter 4 is incapable of > figuring out what 2+2 is because Davis “computability and unsolvability” > chapter 4 never changes. > > > *You make again the rather low level confusion between a text and its > meaning.* > Meaning? The Davis book by itself has no meaning whatsoever, it only has meaning in relation to something physical, like a brain that knows English and is familiar with mathematical notation. And the knowledge of those things is encoded in the way physical neurons in the brain are wired up. *> You show that you believe in matter when you say that a computation has > to be done by matter to be real.* > I am guilty as charged, but that's not all I believe. I also believe you exist so I believe that you and without exception every single one of your ansestors also believed in matter because Natural Selection insists on 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/CAJPayv3_CYHEC75Rb5VO482zV%2Bd%2BK5RnNkWL5SsD4s3nFXy7Kw%40mail.gmail.com.
