On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 3:15 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhmmOkBRpzRHehg%2ByyB9itrB3uqBZf6fjTygt%3D7tFEOrg%40mail.gmail.com.
