On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
*> See papers by handy, or the book by Odifreddy,* > Can the papers by handy or the book by Odifreddy make a calculation? If not why not? > * > which explains that computer science is basically an abstract theory > of localness.* > That's fine but...ah,,, Bruno,... it may surprise you but computer science involves computers, and they are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > *> That is why physical real FTL action at a distance would be a threat to > mechanism,* > Faster Than Light? Faster? The very concept of speed is meaningless in the context of pure numbers because speed is change in distance divided by time and we're talking about pure numbers that can't see distance and can't change and can't see time. > > *despite some form of physical non-localness are still possible. * > The idea of locality depends on distance and if you only have numbers it has been proven that there is NOT a unique way to measure distance, but with physics there IS a unique way to measure distance in 4D spacetime. With the The p-adic absolute value metric there are infinite ways to measure distance and all of them are internally self consistent. With 3-adic for example the distance 3 is from zero is 1/3 and the distance 8/45 is from zero is 9. *> Eventually “locality” admits an abstract definition, * > Definitions don't change reality! And *ALL* definitions are derivative, when you start demanding definitions of the words in the definition eventually you must always come back to an example in the physical world. *Always.* It's the only thing that gives definitions meaning. *> More simply, like in the passage deleted, 7 is changed into 8 relatively > to the memory of some Register* > Changed? How do you change something made of pure numbers? In fact how do you build a register or construct anything else from pure numbers? Assuming there is more than one pure number register in the multiverse how can the number 8 know which register to go into and kick out number 7 that is hiding inside? > * > or Turing machine’s (local) tape.* > A Turing Machine is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics and so is the tape, and in pure numbers "local" has no unique meaning. > >> All machines change. No polynomial changes. Therefore a polynomial can > not simulate a register machine or any other sort of machine. > > > *Then GR is false.* > That's pretty silly even for you. > *You assume a primary physical time. I do not,* > I don't assume I know that time is a dimension and everything physical changes in the 3 spatial dimensions as its worldline moves in the time direction, but pure numbers do *NOT*. Therefore pure numbers can't be responsible for time, it must be physics. > >> And how exactly does a pure number add 1 to a register, or add 1 to > anything, how does a pure number *do* anything at all? > > > *Good question!* > *You have to represent the register itself by a number. Logicians > represent a “register” (R1, R2, R3) , like (4, 4, 6) in arithmetic by* > *2^(4+1) * 3^(4+1) * 5^(6+1)* > Well good for Logicians and good for the way they talk about computer registers in the language of mathematics, but you can't put one pure number inside registers made of pure numbers, but you can put an electron inside a register made of silicon. > *> That computation will be represented by a number, * > OK that's fine, and I can represent a cow by the English word "cow" but I can't get milk from the English word "cow" ; and I can represent a calculation in the language of mathematics with a number, but I can't make a calculation from a representation of a calculation. >> if its a machine then other parts of the machine need to detect that a > change has been made, so how can the integer 9 tell if the integer 7 is in > the “register" > > *> Simple programs can do that,* > No simple program can do that. No complex program can do that. No program can *do* anything at all unless it's running on a computer that obeys the laws of physics. If it is running on a computer then its simple to tell that all registers are not the same because some are electrically charged and some are not. *> With digital mechanism* [...] > I wish you'd stop using the word "mechanism" because I can't get a coherent explanation of what you mean by it, all I know is it has nothing to do with the English meaning. *> By using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, you can store > information in the exponent of a product of prime numbers. *It is the > most standard way, used by Gödel in its 1931 paper. > That's Godel numbering. Assign every digit, letter, punctuation mark, blank space, and mathematical symbol a unique number. To encode y1,y2,y3,y4,... which could be a number or a equation or a function or a algorithm or a poem or anything, do it this way with prime numbers in order. (2^y1)*(3^y2)*(5^y3)*(7^y4)*(11^y5)*(13^y6)... You can factor the number and get the original sequence y1,y2,y3,y4,... out of it; the first prime number 2 occurred Y1 times so whatever symbol you arbitrarily assigned for Y1 is the first character in the number or equation or function or algorithm or a poem or whatever. For example, if I assign 6 to the symbol "0" and 5 to the symbol "=" then the Godel number of the formula "0=0" is (2^6)*(3^5)*(5^6) = 243,000,000. Godel numbers are super useful because if you give me a infinitely long list of algorithms that you claim will allow you to get arbitrarily close to every number on the Real Number Line I can turn all your algorithms into numbers then I can use Cantor's diagonal argument to show you a Real number that is NOT paired up with one of the Godel numbers that represents one of your algorithms. So some real numbers are not computable, in fact nearly all of them are not computable. They can not even be approximated as can be done for transcendental numbers like pi or e, so most Real numbers can not have a name. This is all great stuff, but it all depends on your brain which is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics ARBITRARILY assigning a ASCII character to the number of prime factors, so in the above example 243,000,000 *can* mean "0=0" if we want it to but it could mean something else you wanted it to, so243,000,000 has no unique meaning intrinsic to itself. > *> Reality is what I am searching, and the day you got the guts to assess > “step 3”,* > I assessed step 3 a long time ago and a decade of your "clarifications" has not changed my opinion of it. Judging from the fact that the "proof" has not revolutionized philosophy leads me to believe others have opinions of it that are similar to mine. > *> I hope you remember what the phi_i are, but don’t hesitate (anybody) to > ask a reminder.* > All that means is that a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of physics has decided that out of the infinite number of things the ASCII sequence "Phi_i(xk)" could have stood for it will stand for the (i,k) element of the matrix PHI. The decision to have it mean that in the language of mathematics is just a matter of notation, no different from deciding to call a particular type of animal a "cow" in the language of English. > > *The physical reality is Turing universal. OK? * > Nobody knows if physical reality is Turing Universal or not because nobody knows if it will continue to expand and accelerate forever and so nobody knows if physical reality has the capacity for infinite calculations. >> and the fact that physical processes are needed for both [consciousness > and intelligence] > > *>That is simply false. That would be true if they were some intrinsically > physical definition of computation capable of violating CT, but there are > no evidence for that,* > All the Church–Turing Thesis says is a function of the natural numbers can be calculated if and only if it can be calculated on a Turing Machine. In other words if a Turing Machine can't calculate something, like the Busy Beaver function, then nothing else can either. I see no reason to think the Church–Turing Thesis is false and I see no reason to think that means matter is not needed for intelligence or consciousness. And by the way, I'm assuming when you say "CT" you mean the Church–Turing Thesis and its not another of your silly homemade acronyms meaning who knows what. > >> Please define "define". But when you do define "define" obviously you > can't use any words in the definition that themselves have definitions > because if you do you'd just end up with a tautology, and don't use > examples that involve "primary matter" either because you don't > believe in that. > > *I will say that something is defined when you can express it in some > first order formula,* > Define "express". >> Huh? If I don't assume "primary matter" why should I say no to the > digital doctor > *> The contrary, if you don’t assume “primary matter”, then it makes sense > to say yes.* > I don't think its relevant but you do for some reason and you don't assume “primary matter”, so why don't you say "yes" to the doctor, why aren't you signed up with Alcor like me? > > *If you assume primary matter, mechanism is false*. > So then I should say "no" to the doctor?? In this context "primary" is not synonymous with "important". I think you would agree that whatever you think of physics it's more primary than biology, so does that mean you think life is not worth living? When deciding what to say to the doctor the question of the primacy of matter need never come up, it has nothing to do with it. *> read Gödel’s 1931, or Davis’s book, * > Can Gödel’s 1931 paper or Davis’s book make a calculation? If not why not, my brain can make calculations why can't books? > *> >> In arithmetic, computations does not require primitive physical > energy. * > > >> That's not the only thing that does not require "primitive physical > energy", doing NOTHING doesn't need it either, and your phantom fairy tail > calculations are doing exactly that, NOTHING. > > > You mean nothing physical, > No I mean NOTHING period! All you've got in your toolbox are integers, not registers not matrixes not algorithms not equations, just integers ; and integers never change so you can't build a machine out of them. > *> with the assumption that the physical is primary. * > To hell with physical is primary! It's irrelevant. > *But I do not assume anything like that, and eventually, you can assume > this, and then see my proof as a refutation of mechanism,* > Is that the proof where you assume the thing you're trying to prove or the one where you use personal pronouns with no clear referent to cover up logical plot holes in your thought experiment? > > you have to explain the role of the physical reality in its ability to > select a computation in arithmetic. > Well that doesn't sound very hard, when I was 6 I added 5+2 I did not subtract 5-2 because my first grade teacher told me to add and not to subtract. > “*Word salad” is a very common memes among atheists, I ahem discovered.* > Then it must be very common among Christians too because you said atheism is just a minor variation of Christianity. *>>> But then Mechanism is false.* > > >> Just tell me why I should say no to the digital doctor. > > *> Because if mechanism is false, there is no substitution level in which > you can survive.* > According to you and nobody else on planet Earth "mechanism" means you should say yes to the digital doctor, so if "mechanism" is false then by you're very definition you should say "no" to the digital doctor. But none of this involves any logical reasoning, you've just dreamed up new definitions for common words. 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/CAJPayv3vGyHdreAzBNKsQ6yxC0h5Y%2B7BRD-bRmfH5J_fnv1WQg%40mail.gmail.com.
