On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 3:15 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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. > 1. How do you know when something can't be done? If we can't factor some number in this universe you haven't proved there's not a bigger universe elsewhere where it can be factored. Either way you are forced to define your ontology. > *> 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? > 2. Imagine a Turing machine that spit out the tape like a receipt and created a new copy to work on before it changed any bit on the tape. This machine is still universal is it not? You could run a conscious AI on it, could you not? What is the Turing machine changing? All states it reaches continue to exist unchanged. > >> > *“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. > 3. Which do you regard as the higher ideal, never being wrong or the pursuit of truth? Jason -- 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/CA%2BBCJUhmmOkBRpzRHehg%2ByyB9itrB3uqBZf6fjTygt%3D7tFEOrg%40mail.gmail.com.
