On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:34 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *that is your act of faith, and* [...] > That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph. > >> 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. > > >*I use the fact that the violation of Bell’s inequality might emerge > from the arithmetical physics,* > Bell found his inequality by thinking deeply about things like the way polarized electrons and photons behave as they travel through space and time, and every one of those things are physical. > *With mechanism* [...] > What does "mechanism" mean today in Brunospeak? > >> The idea of locality depends on distance and if you only have numbers > > > *> We much more than the numbers. We have the laws of addition and > multiplication,* > No you don't! Without matter and the laws of physics you have no way to add or subtract anything. And because of p-adic distance, which I don't think you've ever heard of, you don't have one unique self consistent way to measure the distance between numbers you have a infinite number of different ones. Like you and me and all children we were taught the intuitive way to measure distance, but there are infinitely many other ways. And there one reason and one reason only that the way we were taught to measure things was far more intuitive than the others, *it's the way distance works in the physical world *and p-adic distance is not. p-adic distances between rational numbers is not intuitive <https://www.sangakoo.com/en/unit/p-adic-distance> > >> 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? > > *> By following the instructions in the quadruplets.* > Who or what is following those instructions?? What gives the particular ASCII sequence that makes up that quadruplet the Godlike ability to change a integer? And how do you instruct the integer 7 to turn into the integer 8? And after you change it does that now mean 6+1 = 8? It sure can't equal 7 anymore because 7 no longer exists, you've changed it to 8. > >>Time is an illusion in GR, > *BULLSHIT! *Time is no more an illusion in General Relativity than space is, and the distance between 2 events in 4D space time is an invariant. > *> In Aristotle theology* [...] > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelagent ever follows that. *> Digital Mechanism is the idea that we can survive with a digital > physical computer.* > But that definition is inconsistent with nearly every paragraph of yours that starts with the words "With Mechanism", and there are a lot of such paragraphs. > *>>> 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. > > *> Yes, that is the name of how to represent programs, formula and digital > machines in arithmetic.* > I agree, and just as a representation of a cow can't give milk a representation of a digital machine can't compute or *do* anything else, that's why I didn't go to the Apple store and just take a picture of an iMac, the picture is not a machine so I had to buy the actual machine. >> 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 > > > *No. It depends on the universal number you tap to.* > You can't tap into anything without a physical 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, so 243,000,000 has no unique meaning > intrinsic to itself. > > *> Nor any configuration of any machine. It is as much relative in a > physical reality than in the arithmetical reality. * > With a physical machine 243,000,000 might not mean 0=0, it might mean actually *do* something, like turn on an electrical circuit. *> You need to explain what in the physics is not Turing emulable, * > No idea what on earth you're talking about,... unless it's that the expanding acceleration universe is incapable of performing an arbitrarily large number of calculations, and nobody even knows if that's true. *> but then you have already abandoned the “yes doctor idea”.* I have spent $80,000 to fully express the “yes doctor idea”! >> 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. > > *> False,* > Are you claiming your "proof" has revolutionized philosophy? *> and anyway, that is argument per authority. * > But you're the one who has been telling me nearly every other day for years that I haven't convinced anybody on the list so I must be wrong. > *> Then nobody knows if your laptop is Turing universal,* > My laptop is not Turing universal. Unlike the Busy Beaver Function the Ackermann Function *IS* computable and we know for a fact it will eventually halt, although it does get very big very fast. Because it's computable if my laptop is Turing universal it should be able to calculate the decimal expansion of A(6,4), but it can't. It doesn't have enough memory. It doesn't have enough battery life. And there isn't nearly enough room in the observable universe to store a paper printout of the output number. > >>>> 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”. > > > Put in the shape of a grammatically correct sequence of symbols among > {->, f, E, A, (, ), 0, s, +, and *} > Define "symbol". > *Digital Mechanism is logically incompatible with Physicalism* > Why is the physical world incompatible with a system of parts working together in a machine? Note: I'm using the English meaning of "Mechanism" because I don't know what the word means in Brunospeak today. >> In this context "primary" is *not* synonymous with "important”. > > *> Indeed. By primary I have always meant “ontological not reducible to > something else.* > Biology is not primary, it can be reduced to chemistry and chemistry can be reduced to physics. So what? That doesn't mean Biology can't produce consciousness because I know of at least one instance where it most certainly did. So why is it relevant whether matter is primary or not? >> I think you would agree that whatever you think of physics it's more > primary than biology, > > *> Than carbon based biology, yes. * > At least we can agree on one thing. > *that becomes very clear with Kleene’s second recursion theorem, which is > what I used to defined in a precise way all the third person and first > person pronouns*. > When you ask the question "what one and only one city will you see tomorrow after you have been duplicated and visit two different cities" it is NEVER made "very clear" who exactly Mr.You is. And even the day after tomorrow you NEVER make it "very clear" what the correct answer should have been 2 days ago. > >> 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. > > *> It has nothing to do with your practical matter,* > I don't know if it's true today but at least on some days "mechanism" means saying yes to the digital doctor, and that decision is about as personal and practical as things get. And I have not only said yes to the digital doctor I've put my money where my mouth is. *> If mechanism is correct, you will survive with the digital brain > (assuming the doctor is competent, also), and I wish you success.* > Thank you. > *> May be after one thousand year of reflexion, you will eventually gars > step 3,* > I think it will take longer than that. > >> 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? > > *>Because your brain is an implementation of a universal machine/number. A > book does not implement any machine, or computation.* Exactly correct. Turing told us in his paper how to organize matter in such a way that it can perform calculations, but Turing's paper, which consisted of dried wood pulp and ink, was not organized in that way. And neither are pure numbers. *> Why do you come with that absurd idea each time I refer to a book.* > Obviously it's utterly absurd to believe a book can make a calculation, but it's not nearly as absurd as believing pure numbers can make a calculation. At least a book can *do* something, in some circumstances anyway, such as fall in a gravitational field or burn in an oxygen environment; by contrast pure numbers can't *do* anything in any circumstances. > *> You confuse NOTHING with NOTHING PHYSICAL,* > You confuse doing something in your airy fairy phantom world with actually doing SOMETHING. > > your deity MATTER [...] > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph. > *The number 2 does many things. It divides 24,* > Does? The number 2 can't divide or *do* anything else without the help of a Turing Machine made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > *Integers change all the time.* > If that were true then it would be impossible to teach children elementary arithmetic because it would be changing all the time. Many number theorists say the reason they like numbers is that they are eternal universal and unchanging. *> It is not relevant to say “yes” or “no” in a practical implementation of > Mechanism, * And so the meaning of the word "Mechanism" has changed yet again in Brunospeak, although nobody knows what it has been changed to. >> Is that the proof where you assume the thing you're trying to prove > > *> I never do that, so may be you could tell me where you have that > feeling. I have no clue what you are talking about here.* > The entire point of your "proof" and accompanied thought experiments is to make words like "I" and "you" and "he" crystal clear. In our normal everyday world such words have little ambiguity; but in a world where matter duplicating machines exist (and the only reason we don't have such machines already is engineering difficulties not scientific difficulties) such words have a LOT of ambiguity. Nevertheless from the very beginning you assume even after the duplication everything has already been cleared up and personal pronouns, despite the use of personal pronoun duplicating machines, still refer to one and only one individual. So you say stuff like "you will see this" and "he will predict that". It is not allowed to assume what you're trying to prove. *> You have convinced nobody.* > A classic argument from authority! > *If you believe that you have a soul in the catholic sense, you cannot > say “yes” to the doctor, where your soul can survive some digital back-up.* > I don't believe in the soul but even if I did I'd still say "yes" to the doctor. I don't see why liquid nitrogen would destroy a soul nor can I see why a soul can survive inside 3 pounds of grey goo made of hydrogen carbon and oxygen but can't survive inside 3 pounds of silicon. What's so special about goo? 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/CAJPayv3B1qP0BAV5xfQ%3Da2wDOSFZ2PRh4ACGWaQ3AEW%3DJb6x5w%40mail.gmail.com.
