> On 27 Aug 2019, at 13:31, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:37 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > if you think that there is a difference, what is it? It seems that you > > will have to invoke some attribute of your “matter” > > There are 2 attributes that matter has that numbers don't, and I've said this > over and over, the ability to change, and the ability to interact with time > in such a way that cause always precedes effect. And both of these > attributes are vitally important in the making of a mind.
How much? If you ask to much on matter for its role in preserving your consciousness, it will be no more Turing emulable. If it remains Turing emulable, then it is already emulated in the a tiny part of the arithmetical reality. A number cannot change, obviously, but a number can, in virtue of the laws of succession, addition and multiplication, participate in a complex sigma_1 relation, simulating, for example, our local cluster of galaxies, including us, with 10^(10^(10^10)) decimal exactes in the (complex) rationals., at the level of strings, say. This might contain many John Clark knocking on the table, and on a pendulum, or sending me mails to convince that time and space exist “out there”. You assume not just a physical universe, you assume that the physical universe can make a digital machine conscious, and that an arithmetical reality can’t, when objectively both describes number relations, and along physicists some aspect block-universe view, even lattice. Technically you make the physical universe into an oracle, without which the machine cannot be conscious, but with mechanism, that Oracle has to be the random oracle related to the first person indeterminacy. As it is well defined mathematically we can do the comparison, and thanks to QM, it fits. > > > and that it cannot be Turing emulated > > It's the easiest thing in the world for a Turing machine to emulate matter > because a Turing machine is made of matter. > > >> I think information is the fundamental thing that makes me be me, > > >Yes, and it is relative information, and that is given by the relation > >between you and universal numbers, > > If you wish to communicate with your fellow human beings you really need to > give Brunospeak a rest. Try to understand instead of showing your prejudice. As long as you don’t understand the definition of emulation, you will be just invoking a”god” without evidence for it, to prevent people trying to understand the problem, and solve it. Come back to step 3, and got the courage to acknowledge you understand, and move on. Your “refutation” has consisted in elimination the 1p and 3p distinction, or, when acknowledging that description, to say it is trivial, or to replace indeterminacy by ambiguity, and I don’t know which tricks you keep inventing to deny something that many said quite easy to understand, once we apply the definition given in that context. If some primary matter has some role in consciousness and you are still emulable by a Turing machine, then you are emulable by a combinator, a diophantine polynomial, a patter of the game of life, and additive/multiplicative relation. Matter has a role in consciousness, that is correct, but that cannot be used to assert that matter is not explainable in term of coherent subset of computations with respect to some notion of first person plural, definable in arithmetic (or slight extensions). > > >> but information must be about something and in this case it's information > >> about how atoms are arranged. > > > How? > > How what? > > > Could a brain in vat knows anything about those atoms. > > A brain in a skull can know stuff about atoms, why would a brain in a vat be > more ignorant? > > > It could not even know if it is emulated by a Babbage machine or by human > > with paper, or by a quantum computer. > > True, but it could know that it's NOT being emulated by pure numbers, because > whatever is doing the emulating it needs to be something that can change and > something that can interact with time. And pure numbers can't do either of > those things. But matter can. > > >> And atoms are physical things that interact with each other according to > >> the laws of physics. > > > Assuming some physical reality, but that makes no sense when you assume > > Mechanism. > > Then as is your habit you've changed your definition of “Mechanism" This is dishonest at the extreme. Mechanism is YD + CT from the start. >From Mechanism, I derive that *all* explanation invoke the assumption of >physicalism leads to a contradiction, and that physics is given by precise >variant of the Solovay logic G*. You say that I change the definition of mechanism, when I just refer to something proved, and peer reviewed. If you have heard about any scientist having the slightest doubt on the validity of my reasoning, let le know. Until now, I am still the only one finding (rather minor) mistakes. Now, I do have problems with the fanatical atheist, which existed already at the time of Einstein, as illustrated by a letter: <<I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chain which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who---in their grudge against the traditional "opium for people"---cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and humans aims.>> (Einstein, See the book by Max Jammer on "Einstein and Religion", page 97). I have problem only in people believing dogmatically in Materialism/Physicalism and in Digital Mechanism, and that’s normal, because I explain it cannot work together. > yet again to who knows what because I still say "yes" to the digital doctor. > That's why I never bothered to learn Brunospeak, That is a trolling technic. Why do you keep using the argument of those who want to show that they have no argument? You are the one “religious” here. You are the one talking like if you do have found evidence from primary matter, or for physicalism. But you have not show them, and you get trapped by the fact you says yes to a digitalist doctor. I understand your appeal to a mystical notion of computation, but it has to be different from “emulating a universal machine” to provide a role for some primary matter. Maybe some universal number will play key role in the laws of the machine’s observable, but to get the quanta without eliminating the qualia, we have to extract that number, if it exists, by the modal variants I described here and in my papers. Bruno > even if I was fluent in it today by tomorrow it would have mutated so much it > would be incomprehensible. > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21Y2aAo1-V%3DzPHkYWkZbeox8djGqcJRvKwor5b9ASY8g%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21Y2aAo1-V%3DzPHkYWkZbeox8djGqcJRvKwor5b9ASY8g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/3CEFA32F-42BD-4457-B001-DDCB9E365AAD%40ulb.ac.be.
