> On 29 Aug 2019, at 18:17, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:45 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > When we prove that there is no biggest prime number, we don’t make the > > prime numbers being infinite. There was no biggest prime number "well > > before” Euclid proved it. > > Euclid proved that IF numbers have nothing to do with physics then there are > infinitely many primes. But that's a big if.
That is false. Or give the reference. The numbers, informally, intuitively, as well as formally have no relation at all with any assumption concerning the existence of a physical reality, nor any physical facts, except of course has lived experienced when we begin to measure things. But Euclid was neutral on metaphysics, and was writing about numbers, and not in the domain of physics. Euclid simply did not assume that numbers have nothing to do with physics. > > > Any way, if you believe that stars are made of primitive matter, then you > > become inconsistent when saying “yes” to a digitalist doctor. > > Neither I or the "digitalist" (formerly digital) doctor give a damn if "stars > are made of primitive matter" because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. May be. But then he is ignorant of the metaphysical consequences of his hypothesis. > > >> I don't know what it is today but Just a few days ago in the language of > >> Brunospeak a belief in Mechanism mente saying "yes" to the digital > > > Not digital. But “digitalist”. Unless you say only yes to a doctor who has > > itself already say yes to a doctor. > > Well now, that clears things up beautifully! > > > what is the role of your primitive matter in consciousness > > I don't care. Then you should not use it to claim that only a primitively material computation can support consciousness. > My answer to the digital or digitized or digitalist doctor has not changed, > it's still yes. It is OK, but normally we don’t refer to our own opinion when we do science. I am very open to the idea that you are right. I show only that a consequence of this “saying yes”, when made mathematically precise by accepting the Turing-Church-Kleene Thesis, entails the necessity of a reduction of the physical science to arithmetical self-reference (the modal logic of Solovay G* and the nuances of it bring by the incompleteness it describes). > That means the day before yesterday I believed in mechanism according to the > Brunospeak meaning of the word, but today I may or may not believe in > mechanism, I'm not sure because my Brunospeak is not up to date. And we all know why. You are stuck at the 3th step of the UDA, and for step 7, you need to understand the standard, *arithmetical*, definition of the term “computer”, “simulation”, “emulation”, etc. Believing that Euclid made an assumption about some relation between number and physics will not help, and is a form of revisionism. > > > (and what is your “primitive matter”, incidentally, can you give a theory > > of it, > > Nope. I see. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3vQ_JQY4JWN6ENPGzztEhnqL1ehvaw3go%3DiRbe4THpcA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3vQ_JQY4JWN6ENPGzztEhnqL1ehvaw3go%3DiRbe4THpcA%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/140770A3-5829-4FF9-ADF1-8D9F23035615%40ulb.ac.be.
