On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote
>> 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. > > *> You cannot invoke your personal ontological commitment in a domain > which does not assume it.* > To hell with personal ontological commitments, the only thing I'm "invoking" is the idea that if something can't be done then something can't be done. And the great thing about tautologies is that all of them are always 100% true. *> Numbers can change all the time. * > So you keep saying, and yet you can't answer the simplest questions concerning that. If 7 changes to 8 does that mean the number 7 no longer exists? Are there now two integer 8's and how can one be distinguished from the other? > > *“Primary” means, as I said often: “in need to be assumed”.* > So you think mathematics needs to be assumed while I think physics needs to be assumed. That could be an interesting debate but it's irrelevant if we're talking about computation or intelagent behavior or consciousness. After both you and me have made our assumptions then we both need to work out the consequences of those assumptions, so eventually we'll both come to physics, and then chemistry, and then biology, and then humans making physical Turing Machines. Regardless of if we start with numbers or the quark gluon plasma of the Big Bang it doesn't matter because neither are conducive with intelligence or consciousness, although the consequences of those things may be after 13.8 billion years. > > Which is what you do to say that not all odd numbers + 1 are divisible > by 2, > I said that would be true *IF* the computational capacity of the expanding accelerating universe is finite, and I don't know if it is or isn't. > > *you confuse the mathematical reality with the physical reality, which > is basically Aristotle Metaphysics.* > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelagent ever follows. > >> 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.* > *> “Saying “yes” to the doctor is an abbreviation of the assumption that we > survive with an artificial brain when it is copied at some level. * > If you change "assumption" with "belief in the possibility" then I would agree. But if saying “yes” to the doctor is an abbreviation then what is "mechanism" in Brunospeak, an abbreviation of an abbreviation? And I still don't know what inconsistency you claim to see in saying "yes" to the doctor under any circumstances. *>It is inconsistent, obviously, with the assumption that we die, whatever > level of description we choose. It is inconsistent with the assumption that > we are infinite machine (of some kind, though).* > That is most certainly *NOT *obviously inconsistent to me! If 3 pounds of Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen and Nitrogen grey goo is an "infinite machine of some sort" (whatever the hell that means) then why can't 3 pounds of Silicon? > > *And it is inconstant with the idea that a God, or* [...] > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelagent ever follows. >> 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. > > *> I am OK with that definition,* > Good. * > although “physical law” is not defined.* > It's *EXACTLY* as well defined as "defined" is defined, no more no less. *> With Mechanism (YD + CT),* > I thought, with Mechanism (saying "yes" to the digital doctor). And you keep forgetting IHA. > >> Computation by its very nature involves change and Integers can't > change, but physical things can. > > *> That is why all the “John Clark” already say in the arithmetical > reality. Are they zombie? * > Yes, all the John Clark's in "arithmetical reality" are zombies, but they don't say that, they don't say anything, they don't behave intelligently and none of them can *do* anything at all because none of then can change. > *> I will answer in your way: how could an physical equation or a book in > physics change anything?* > Reading a physics textbook can change the arrangement of atoms inside the brain of the person reading the book and it can change nothing else; and exactly precisely the same thing would be true if it was a book on the theory of computation or any other area of mathematics. > *>>>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/CAJPayv39vP8iccpQXUCDGz7jX%2BjMGG%2BsWX%3D9R2gXbuUZ4NU%3Djw%40mail.gmail.com.
