On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:27 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> *> The simplest thing which is non trivial and that I can conceive is > elementary number theory. 2+2=4 is conceptually more simple than the > quantum vacuum.* > I don't know if that's true, but if it is then the quantum vacuum behaves in more complex ways and does more interesting things than elementary number theory, things like intelagent behavior and consciousness. > *> Consciousness, intelligence and observable are indeed things to derive, > and mechanism derive it from number relations,* > There is simply no way that could be correct. Consciousness changes, or at least my consciousness does and so does physical relations, but numbers never do. >> 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? > > *> The result is a number, then we can interpret the number in term of the > magnitude of something, but the physicalist adds something by committing > itself in the idea that the magnitude refer to a physical universe, * > Because a physicists can measure a voltage but he can't measure a pure number. >> A book has no meaning to you if you don't know the language it's written > in > > *> Not really. The book might be without a meaning accessible to me, but > still accessible to another one. We might decide that a book has meaning if > there is one universal number making genuine sense from it. * > I googled "universal number" and all I got was stuff about numerology and the way dentist refer to specific teeth. *> Without physical implementation, there is no direct physical use,* > Without matter there is no physical or nonphysical use directly or indirectly. *> but without a FORTRAN interpreter, no FORTRAN code could have meaning.* > Having a FORTRAN interpreter is necessary but not sufficient to obtain meaning, and the same thing could be said of a Physical Turing machine. Both are needed. > >> OK so 0=1, that's fine. > > *> No, that is not fine. If 0=1, pigs have wings.* > Yes but that's OK too, if nothing physical exists then pigs and wings can't cause problems because they don't exist. And there are no minds that might be upset by paradoxes. >> 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 . > > *> Contrast comes from the fact that some arithmetical relation are true, > or false, * > A physicist can say a voltage difference either exists or it doesn't, but all a mathematician can say is if a arithmetical relation can be derived from a set of agreed on axioms then its true, but derivation requires calculation and without a Physical Turing Machine nothing can be calculated. > *> If you have a physical definition of natural number, let me know,* > OK, the natural number 1 is exactly the number of seconds it takes light to travel 299,792,458 meters, and the natural number n is exactly the number of seconds it takes light to travel n times that distance. >>Nobody assumes time and space they observe them. *> The whole point of Plato* [...] > My cue to skip to the next paragraph. >> 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? > > *> Yes. It actually did.* > I hope you don't really mean that because if you do you've lost your mind. * > INTEL, silicon, matter are all in the head of the universal machine. > The mathematical explains where INTEL comes from ... * > I don't want you to explain anything, I want you you to PERFORM a calculation without using matter that obeys the laws of physics, and we both know you're never ever *EVER* going to be able to do that. > *> You need to first understand that (N, 0, s, +, *) satisfies the > existence of all computations, * > All? (N, 0, s, +, *) satisfies *ALL* computations? Did I get that right, *All *computations?! *ALL*? Why in your life did you ever waste money buying a computer when (N, 0, s, +, *) can do *ALL* you want a computer to do? > > *and then to explain me what is your stuff, with definition or example,* > I've answered that question before, John K Clark is the way matter behaves when it is organized in a johnkclarkian way. > *> **you seem to accept mechanism,* > Yes and I've accepted it more than most, I spent $80,000 on it. > *> which force you to accept some computationalist account of > consciousness,* > My fundamental axiom is consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed. If you think about it although we strongly disagree about a lot of stuff I wouldn't be surprised if that's your fundamental axiom too. After all, what is the alternative? > *> but then, that theory of consciousness will applied to the (relative) > numbers.* > That would be valid if numbers could process data but they can't because they can't change, only matter that obeys the laws of physics can perform calculations because matter can change. We may use numbers to describe the pattern in space of voltages that are inside a computer, but it always comes down to voltages not numbers. >> 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. > > *> A universal Turing machine is a finite object.* > Something can be finite and still be much much larger than me. Back in 2010 a Universal Turing Machine calculated the 2,000,000,000,000,000th digit of pi, it turned out to be 0. I could not have done that, not even if I had pencil and paper to help me. *> It might (and will) sooner or later asks for more memory space. * > I can ask for more memory space but unlike a UTM I won't get it, and even if I did there wouldn't be enough space for it to fit inside my skull. *> But the memory space is in the environment, not in the definition of the > finite set of quadruplet. * > That's OK because I don't give a damn about the definition of the finite set of quadruplets, I'm not interested in any definition I'm interested in PERFORMING calculations. > *> Nor do I assume a primitive physical universe in the thought > experience.* > That's just silly, nobody assumes an experience. And no amount of assumptions or definitions can add 2 and 2 without physics. > >> 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? > > > *Changes are defined in the relative way, like in Block-Universe view > of GR.* > Einstein made it clear that the Block-Universe is not homogeneous but changes along the time dimension and along each of the 3 spatial dimensions. You think the number 7 changes relative to something. What is that something? And you never answered my question, after the number 7 changes to something else how much is 4+3? *> Hardware and software are relative notion, except for the physical > hardware,* > Yes! > > *which is not a software at all,* > Yes! > *> but a phenomenological perception by the universal numbers.* > Numbers that can perceive things? In English the term "universal numbers" is only meaningful in the world of astrology and dentistry, however nobody but Bruno knows what "universal numbers" means in Brunospeak. >> If you really believe, and apparently you do, that a proof has been > found that pure numbers can change > > *> Relatively to other number, through number relations.* > Relative to the number 11 how has the number 7 changed? > *> Obviously “a number can change” is nonsense, but in the course of a > computation, even, made in arithmetic, a number can change.* > I see, obviously a number changing is nonsense but a number can change. No, I take that back, I don't see. *> and have the power to change things in the physical world* > As I've been saying for years stop telling me about how to do it and just do it, DO IT AND BECOME GOD! *> A number cannot change something in the physical world.* > I see, a number has "*the power to change things in the physical world**"* but "*a **number cannot change something in the physical world*". No, I take that back, I don't see. > > *But the relation between the numbers can make relative numbers > experience change.* > When does 4+3=7 and when does it not? >>> *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. *> So you don’t agree with Euclid? His proof of the infinity of prime > number is orthogonal to physics. It says nothing in physics, *and it uses > nothing in physics. > Euclid's proof contains no error but it starts with a INVALID ASSUMPTION and you just pointed out exactly what that assumption is; from the first line of the proof to the last Euclid assumes that numbers have nothing to do with physics. 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/CAJPayv15PKZ8%3DgdAWf20sf-m7cPwGSJG1NX_oq4gK2go9mk5Pw%40mail.gmail.com.
