On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:43 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> *> The point is that the size of the universe, or even its existence is > relevant to say that beyond some point a number is no more physical > divisible by some instantiation of a physical computers, but that is > irrelevant with the validity of Euclid’s argument that there are infinitely > many primes.* > Being wrong could not be more relevant. Euclid said if n is prime then n+1 can ALWAYS be divided by 2, but if the computational capacity of the universe is finite (and I'm not saying it is I'm saying if) then n+1 can NOT always be divided by 2 and Euclid was flat out wrong. > *Unless you assume that there is a physical primary universe* > And to think you were just talking about irrelevance! To hell with this "primary" crap, I don't know if the matter I see around me is primary or not but I know numbers can't be because numbers can't change. *> of some sort, in which case Mechanism becomes inconsistent* > Assuming you like existence more than non-existence (and if you don't that's fine, there is no disputing matters of taste) please explain why saying "yes" to the digital doctor is inconsistent with *ANYTHING.* *> May be in physics, although String theory provides an amazing > counter-intuitive-exemple, by using the zeta-regularisation, * > String theory is not a theory, perhaps someday it will be but right now it is just a groping toward a theory, in fact it's not even science because it explains nothing we didn't already know and makes no predictions. And if the number of primes is finite but HUGE then whatever mathematicians say about their distribution will still be approximately true and if there is a connection between the primes and physics then the prediction they make about the physical world will also be approximately true. And Science doesn't deal in absolute truth it just hopes to find a theory that is less wrong than the previous theory. *> I prefer to simply not assume a physical universe.* > That's nice but I don't care what you assume and the physical universe probably cares even less. I say "probably" because I'm not even sure what you mean by "physical universe", but I'll tell you what I mean by it, everything that obeys physical law. > *Eventually such notions does not fit consistently with mechanism.* > It does if "mechanism" still means saying "yes" to the digital doctor, but that's what it mente a week ago and definitions in Brunospeak rarely last as long as a week. *> You have not yet explain how a physical universe can make a material > computation more real. * > Yes I have! Computation by its very nature involves change and Integers can't change, but physical things can. > *With mechanism, we do understand how the physical makes a computation > relatively more probable. That physicalness is no more primary though. * > I don't understand why you keep harping on that. The primacy or non-primacy of matter is completely unrelated to the fact that computation needs change and matter can change but integers can't. > >>Can Davis’ book or Gödel’s 1931 paper make a calculation? > > *>>This question is beyond ridiculous.* > I couldn't agree more, so stop referring me to books and papers whenever I say computers made of matter can make calculations but ASCII sequences can't, not even when the sequences are printed in books and papers. > *>>>The successor function, which sends n on n+1* [...] > > >> Stop right there! Sends? How does the function "send" anything > anywhere, how exactly does it *do* that? Does the function need energy to > *do" it? Is it instantaneous or does it take time? And after the function > turns 5 into 6 does that mean the integer 5 no longer exists? And what > happened to the old #6 after the new guy moved in? > > *> That is elementary mathematics, or you are playing with the words.* > Playing with words, that's your standard goto argument whenever I've backed you into a logical corner because you can't think of anything better to say. Every one of those questions are perfectly valid and you need to answer them all if you wish to defend your theory. Good luck with that. > *And, no, computations, even physical does not require energy, except for > the read and the write. Only erasing information requires energy, and we > can compute without ever erasing information.* And your "computation" requires no energy because you have not erased information, or written information, or read information, or done anything at all. > > *A LISP interpreter is a computer, in the sense of a universal “Turing” > machine.* > It pains me that I have to spell this out but a computer needs to be able to compute, and by itself a LISP interpreter can't compute, by itself it can't *do* anything, it never changes, it just sits there. > *You can run it on *any* universal system.* > Sure, but ALL universal systems require matter that obeys the laws of physics. >> The definition of "Mechanism" in English is "a system of parts working > together in a machine", but that's not what it means in Brunospeak, last > week it meant "saying yes to the digital doctor”, > > *>It has always meant that.* > Then stop babbling that if matter is not "primary" then Mechanism is untrue because regardless of if it's primary or not there is no logical reason for me to say anything other than "yes" to the digital doctor given that I personally like existence more than nonexistence. 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/CAJPayv29_P7HETbUcsvLy0bAxp6RpsHVcTtdjc_yQVNL6gRfPA%40mail.gmail.com.
