On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 5:53 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
*>>> I believe in the physical reality, but I do not necessarily believe > that the physical reality is the fundamental reality.* > > >> Who cares? > > > I*t is the subject of the thread.* > It most certainly is *NOT*! The title of this thread is "Observation versus assumption", and both observation and assumption are very complex phenomenon, and just like intelligence and consciousness they can *NOT* be fundamental or primitive. > > * why do you insist that fundamental stuff must exist to dignity a > computation as “real".* > I have no idea what that means, but I know the only thing I insist is that fundamental stuff be simple, and neither consciousness or observation or assumption or intelligent behavior is simple. > *>>>**Look at experimental physicists. They measure numbers only,* > > >> How can you measure the pure number 7? > > *> OK. I meant (if course) they measure numerical magnitude,* > No they do NOT measure numerical magnitude! Experimental physicists measure physical magnitudes and describe what they found in the language of mathematics. How could you even in theory measure the numerical magnitude of the number 7? Does that magnature ever change? >> every time you try to explain what you mean by "mechanism" you start > using words like "fundamental " and "primitive" which are irrelevant in a > philosophical discussion about immortality, intelagent behavior or > consciousness. > > > *Mechanism is "Yes Doctor”. * > I have actually said "yes" in that situation and I've put my money where my mouth is so obviously I believe in what you call "mechanism", and I can make a logical case for "yes" being the correct answer without expressing any opinion whatsoever about what is or is not fundamental; I may have opinions on that subject but they play no part in what I say to the doctor. > *> **It needs CT, and some amount of arithmetical realism to define what > is a digital machine.* > I don't need a definition of a digital machine or a definition of anything else to figure out that "yes" is the logical thing for someone to say to the doctor if they like existence better than oblivion. *> That physics is no more the fundamental science is a consequence, * > I strongly disagree, but even if you're correct "yes" would still be the logical thing to say to the doctor. So even if you convinced me that physics is not more fundamental than mathematics I would still believe in what you call "mechanism". >> There are an infinite number of computational relationships, but most of > them are nonsense and pure mathematics has no way to sort the sense from > nonsense, but physics does. If you have one rock of a certain mass moving > at a certain velocity and then you get another identical rock then you have > exactly 2 times the energy and momentum, not 1 or 3 or 4 or any other > number, only 2 will work. Without physics numbers wouldn't even have a > consistent meaning. And of course there would be no way to make a > calculation or form a thought. > > *> Model theory illustrate that pure mathematics has meaning.* > Model theory can't think so it can't illustrate anything if there is no receptive mind around. You can't just say X has meaning you've got to specify who gets that meaning. A book has no meaning to you if you don't know the language it's written in, and without anything physical there would be no one and no thing to receive meaning. >> in pure mathematics there is nothing special about 2+2=4, 2+2=5 works > fine, > > *> No. 2+2=5 entails 0 = 1, * > OK so 0=1, that's fine. There is nothing physical in existence so 0=1 causes no trouble to any thing because there are no things, there are not even simple things much less complex minds that are disturbed by paradoxes. >> Whatever that primitive stuff is there are 2 things we know for certain > about it: > 1) It has contrast, that is to say everything either exists or it does not > and there is a detectable difference between the two; "nonexistence" has > the property of infinite unbounded homogeneity and existence is everything > else. > 2) The primitive stuff must be able to be organized into parts that are > themselves organized in complex ways and behave in ways the unorganized > primitive stuff could not. > > *> That works well for the numbers.* > I don't think they do because there would be no contrast. If nothing physical existed then pure numbers would have the property of infinite unbounded homogeneity, so they wouldn't exist either. >> To hell with definitions, Turing taught us how to BUILD a digital machine. > So we can just point and say a digital machine is one of those. > > *> He gave the first definition of Digital machine (together with Post, > Church, etc.).* > You like fundamental stuff, at least you talk about it all the time, well... examples are more fundamental than definitions. Ultimately all definitions are derived from examples. > >> You don't have to assume numbers or anything else, you only need to > observe that things change in time and space > > *> Assuming time and space is much more than assuming numbers.* > Nobody assumes time and space they observe them. Immanuel Kant goes even further and says time and space are more than just empirical but are what he calls a "pure intuition", and without them no experience is possible, not even the experience of numbers. I think Kant was pretty much right about that. > >> Some computations, like the sort INTEL makes with their silicon, can > play a part in cause and effect, and some "calculations", like your silly > phantom calculations, can not. > > *> Only if the silicon is blessed with Holy water. Oh you bless it only > with Holy Matter. That’s not my religion* > Call it Holy Water blessed or call it Holy Silicon blessed I don't care, but are you really going to tell me with a straight face that your phantom calculations can produce all the effects that INTEL's Silicon calculations can?! Do you really want to say that? If your answer is "no" or even "no but" then you've still retained some sanity but if the answer is "yes" then.... > *>>> That is a reason why I do not assume, neither matter, nor > consciousness,* > > >> Not even your own consciousness? You think you may be a zombie? > > > No, I derive consciousness and matter from the computational relation. > Nobody derives consciousness from computational relations or derives it from anything else. And nobody assumes consciousness either. I know I'm conscious from direct experience and, assuming that you're conscious, you have done the same thing I have. >>> (A Löbian machine is a universal machine capable of proving its own > Turing universality. > >> A universal Turing machine can emulate any Turing Machine by reading its > input tape which contains the description of the machine to be simulated as > well as the data to be worked on. So all "Löbian machines" are Turing > Machines but not all Turing Machines are "Löbian machines". > > > *> Indeed. The Löbian machine believes in enough induction axioms to be > able to prove that they are universal. * > I am a Turing Machine but I am not a Universal Turing Machine or a "Löbian machine" because there are some problems that a Turing Machine can solve with a *finite* amount of tape that I can not because my tape is too short. So I can't prove I'm universal because I'm not. And yet I'm conscious. *>>> The John Clark in arithmetic change relatively to the universal > numbers running them. Take the number corresponding to a simulation of our > cluster of galaxies at the level of strings with 10^(10^10000) decimals.* > > >> That huge number never changes, or at least it wouldn't if it existed, > but if the entire expanding accelerating universe > > *> I don’t assume any of this.* > If that huge number can change then so can any number, so when the number 7 changes to something else the number 7 no longer exists. So in this new reality how much is 4+3? *>>> Programming language are not just set of characters. There is a > grammar, and a notion of reality attached* > >>The notion of reality that needs to be attached is hardware, a computer > made of matter that obeys the laws of physics; because without that the > programing language is just a set of characters that never change and is > incapable of changing anything. > > *> That shows you have never read a book in mathematics, or you did not > understand anything in there.* > If you really believe, and apparently you do, that a proof has been found that pure numbers can change and have the power to change things in the physical world that are not pure numbers then, as I said before, although you may be able to follow all the small steps in a proof once you get to the end you don't understand what it is that has been proven. *>>> Indeed. They don’t even assumes anything physical, unless they have a > chapter on the physical machines, which is rare in the theoretical textbook > I refer too. But none assume a primitively real reality.* > > >> Oh no we're back with "primitive”! > > *> It is what we are discussing.* > I thought we were discussing more interesting and complex things like intelligent behavior and consciousness. >> You agree a Physical Turing Machine can do things that pure numbers can > not and that's all that's important, it's irrelevant if it's primitive. > > > *It is the subject of the discussion.* > I thought we were discussing more interesting and complex things like intelligent behavior and consciousness. >> if anybody on this list did not believe in physical reality they'd be > killed the first time they tried to cross a street. > > *> Everybody believe in the physical reality. Not everybody believe that > the physical reality is not reducible to another realm.* > How is that relevant? An Amoeba is reducible to atoms but the Amoeba has a property the atoms lack, life. > > *To you agree with Euclid’s proof that there is no biggest prime > number?* > That is a physical question. It depends on if the expanding accelerating universe has the capacity to perform a infinite (and not just astronomical) number of calculations and I don't know the answer to that but I have reasons to be somewhat skeptical. 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/CAJPayv1P0VMWA80hgtUMnmqKVoLHquf%2B11evC4%2B_UB5cbN1MRQ%40mail.gmail.com.
