> On 20 Sep 2019, at 18:35, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:51 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > you invoke your god [...]
>
> That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent ever
> follows.
>
> >> And because of p-adic distance, which I don't think you've ever heard of,
>
> > Gratuitous inference, false (actually, all mathematicians know them, and
> > sometimes used them), but that p-adic stuff is only a distraction here. It
> > has nothing to do with the subject.
>
> It has to do with establishing a metric, and there are a infinite number of
> them that are mathematically self consistent, but only one is compatible with
> physical ideas of time and space, and it is not a coincidence that out of
> that infinite number that is the only one that even mathematicians teach
> their children, and it is not a coincidence that is the only one your beloved
> Greeks used.
>
> > In your religion [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent
> ever follows.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > I don’t believe in a primary physical world,
>
> Then the fact that none of the p-adic distances are appropriate for measuring
> things in the physical world is not important, so why don't we start teaching
> that in the first grade?
Because it is not important with respect of what we are discussing here too.
>
> >>> By following the instructions in the quadruplets.
>
> >> Who or what is following those instructions??
Any universal system in which you implement the Turing machine. Be it physical
or not.
>
> > Any Turing universal reality will do. Elementary arithmetic for example.
>
> That's yet another of your homemade terms used by nobody but you,
Where is the problem? A reality is what we discuss about since day one, and
some reality can be Turing universal (implements all Turing machine) and other
not.
> lets have some details on how a "Turing universal reality" can be real
> without being physical; with "real" meaning the ability to change something,
> anything.
But that is super-idiosyncratic. General relativity is already defeated here.
All static block universe view is defeated here. Even the physical universe
get unreal, as it can change nothing, given that he has no input nor output.
> And keep in mind that being universal means that once you've changed X into Y
> you can no longer use X for anything anywhere because it no longer exists.
Then all known universal machine are no longer universal.
> Can you get along without the number 7 once you've added 1 to it and turned
> it into 8?
It depends on the context, but not on the nature of the context.
At some point, I will ask you to give your theory, written in predicate
calculus.
>
> >>>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.
>
> > But such time does not flow,
>
> Time is just a dimension, General Relativity treats time a little differently
> than the 3 spatial dimensions but I don't know what you mean by "time does
> not flow". How would things be different if time DID flow?
Then you die when saying “yes” to the doctor.
>
> > So it is the same as in the arithmetic, where, of course, time is still an
> > open problem.
>
> There is no problem, it's just that pure numbers with no dimensions attached
> to them are unaffected by time and so can not change anything in time. And
> the same is true of space,
That is your religion. My point is that such a religion is incompatible with
the mechanist assumption.
>
> > your god Matter [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelagent
> ever follows.
>
> >> just as a representation of a cow can't give milk a representation of a
> >> digital machine can't compute
>
> > You are right. It is not the representation of a computation in arithmetic
> > which computes, it is the truth of the statements represented which counts.
>
> I doubt you believe fundamental truth is ephemeral,
Indeed.
> you think it is eternal and unchanging, but to be able to make a computation
> something needs to count, and to count something needs to change, and truth
> does not change so truth can not compute. But matter can because matter can
> change.
All what you need is that something change relatively to something else, and
that happens, if only in all computations which exists, out of time and space,
in arithmetic.
>
> >>> It depends on the universal number you tap to.
>
> >> You can't tap into anything without a physical brain.
In your religion. Sorry, I am agnostic. I search the truth. I don’t know it.
>
> > Sure, but that does not mean that the physical brain is primary.
>
> It doesn't make one bit of difference if a brain is primary or not,
For consciousness here and now, no. But to predict observable things, it does.
You need of course to overcome your step 3 anxiety to grasp this.
> if you can't *do* things without a physical brain then you can't *do* things
> without a physical brain!
Sure.
>
> > invoking a god [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent
> ever follows.
>
> >>> but then you have already abandoned the “yes doctor idea”.
>
> >> I have spent $80,000 to fully express the “yes doctor idea”!
>
> > Yes, you are a Mechanist.
>
> But I can't be a "Mechanist" because you said I have "abandoned the yes
> doctor idea”
I said only that if you believe in primary physical things, then you need to
abandon saying yes to the doctor, and all this if you are rational enough,
which I have never assumed, and tend to doubt.
> and you should know because you're the one who gave that common English word
> a new meaning. At one time I thought I knew what you meant by the "yes doctor
> idea" but apparently I was wrong.
Because you understand mechanism, but then stop studying a proof that you can
no more believe in your god ‘“matter”. That religion is inconsistent with the
mechanist assumption, which is only that we can survive Sith some artificial
brain.
>
> > the original greek sense [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent
> ever follows.
>
> > when you will grasp the step 3 of the UDA [...]
>
> That could only happen when you remember IHA and remember you can't use
> personal pronouns in any thought exparament that contains a personal pronoun
> duplicating machine and remember that you can't assign a probability of
> making a correct prediction about a future event if even after the event is
> over you don't know what the correct prediction should have been.
>
> > I think I should wait 'till you grasp the step 3.
>
> Grasping step 3 is like trying to grasp smoke, there is nothing to grasp.
<sigh>
You are playing with words all the time.
Bruno
>
> > Plato’s conception of reality [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent
> ever follows.
>
> >> 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.
>
> >Of course it can.
>
> Of course it CAN'T!
>
> >> It doesn't have enough memory.
>
> > That is not relevant for Turing universality. The universal Turing machine
> > has a finite tape,
>
> Yes the tape is finite but it needs to be sufficient. After it has halted any
> universal Turing machine will have only used a finite amount of tape, and we
> know for a fact A(6,4) will eventually halt and the calculation will only
> need a finite amount of tape , but it will take a long LONG time and a LOT of
> tape, my laptop doesn't have sufficient tape (aka memory), and even the
> entire observable universe probably doesn't have sufficient tape to calculate
> the decimal expansion of A(6,4).
>
> >>>>>> Define "Define"
>
> >>>>> I will say that something is defined when you can express it in some
> >>>>> first order formula,
>
> >>>> Define "express”.
>
> >>> Put the symbol one after the other. All that can be define in arithmetic,
> >>> notice. Put in the shape of a grammatically correct sequence of symbols
> >>> among {->, f, E, A, (, ), 0, s, +, and *}
>
> >> Define "symbol”.
>
> > Element of an alphabet. Now you will ask “define alphabet”. Just a finite
> > set.
>
> Define "set".
>
> >>Why is the physical world incompatible with a system of parts working
> >>together in a machine?
>
> > Sorry but you need to grasp the step 3 for this.
>
> In other words you have no coherent explanation and no way anyone can know
> what you mean by "mechanism".
>
> >> Note: I'm using the English meaning of "Mechanism" because I don't know
> >> what the word means in Brunospeak today.
>
> > You have a poor memory as, I recall, it is “saying “yes” to the digitalist
> > surgeon.
>
> I have a poor memory? You're the one who said I have "abandoned the yes
> doctor idea" and yet I am a "Mechanist". I thought I knew what you mean by
> the "yes doctor idea" but maybe not, so maybe I have abandoned it who knows,
> but even if I have you're being inconsistent; if I've abandoned it then I'm
> not a "Mechanist" in your idiosyncratic meaning of the word.
>
> > Buy a book on logic
>
> Can a book on logic make a calculation?
>
> >> 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.
>
> > That has not been made clear,
>
> I could not agree more.
>
> > but you have agree with it many times already.
>
> What the hell?
>
> > in Aristotle theology [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent
> ever follows.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 2 divides 4, in *all* circumstances.
>
> The pure number 2 can't divide or do anything at all to the pure number 4 in
> *any* circumstances, but 2 marks on a physical tape can do something to 4
> marks on a physical tape if it's part of a physical Turing Machine.
>
> > We have to come back to Plato [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent
> ever follows.
> >>> 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.
>
> >Yes,
>
> So integers change all the time but are eternal universal and unchanging.
> That does not compute and neither do pure integers.
>
> > “Saying yes” is, as explained in my papers and here, just an abbreviation
> > that your survive when saying yes,
>
> And I've said "yes" with $80,000 worth of enthusiasm and so I am a
> "mechanist" and yet you say I've abandoned the saying yes idea which is news
> to me.
>
> > You play with word
>
> That is always your default fallback position when I've backed you into a
> logical corner and you can't think of anything better to say.
>
> > and know perfectly well what I mean by “yes doctor” and “mechanism”.
>
> At one time I thought I knew what you mente but if I've abandoned the “yes
> doctor” idea but am still a "mechanist" then I don't know what idea I've
> abandoned or what a "mechanist" is.
>
> > you are doing just a religious sermon [...]
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent
> ever follows.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > No, you have agreed that the two copies are digne successor of the
> > original, so we have no problem at all with personal identity,
>
> If there are 2 copies of "you" then you can not ask "what one and only one
> city will you see?" because it is not a question, it is just gibberish with a
> question mark at the end. That's why even after the event is loung over
> nobody can say what the correct answer turned out to be, there was nst ever
> an answer because there was never a question. And when you start pee peeing
> in response to this remember that in a world with people duplicating machines
> there is no such thing as THE first person.
>
> > we get the first person indeterminacy.
>
> With quantum indeterminacy we can't say for certain if an atom of uranium
> will decay tomorrow but at least we can say for certain if a an atom of
> uranium decayed yesterday, but with your silly "first person indeterminacy"
> not only are you unable to say what city you will see tomorrow you can't even
> say what city you saw yesterday, and if you can't say even after the event
> what the correct answer should have been you can't assign probabilities.
>
> > I have got many scientific jury on this (thesis, the prize), and no
> scientist have ever get any problem with this.
>
> And that is why you're famous for revolutionizing science... oh waite...
>
> > >>You have convinced nobody.
>
> >> A classic argument from authority!
>
> > Not at all. The exact contrary. When a paper is peer reviewed, if it
> > convinces nobody it is rejected, not by argument of authority, but by lack
> > of genuine argument in the paper, or errors.
>
> And that's why your paper is widely cited in the pages of Nature, Science and
> Physical Review Letters..... oh waite...
>
> >>> 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
>
> >You know that I sue that term for the “first person”.
>
> I don't know why you can't get this through your head, in a world that
> contains first person duplicating machines there is no such thing as THE
> first person! And A first person has some similarities to the traditional
> religious concept of the soul but there are differences too, a soul can't be
> duplicated but A first person can be, a soul by its very nature is
> incomprehensible but A first person can be understood because information
> organized the matter that produced it and information is the only thing that
> can be understood.
>
> >> 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?
>
> > You lost me here.
>
> Wow, you get lost easy.
>
> > What is “goo”?
>
> 3 pounds of grey stuff inside a box made of bone.
>
> > all the problem comes from your absence of grasping the very easy step 3,
>
> All the problems comes from Bruno's incredibly naive belief that Bruno can
> use personal pronouns in exactly the same way Bruno always has in everyday
> life even though the thought experiment contains a personal pronoun
> duplicating machine, and in Bruno's silly idea that probabilities of a
> prediction being right can be assigned even if long after the event is over
> Bruno still can not say what the correct prediction would have been.
>
> > you just need to be able top acknowledge you get the point and move
> toward step 4.
>
> That will never happen because we both know you will never fix step 3.
>
> 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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3q%2B3kO2puQu6B7ejxOjbZSSF7Aw_dx47D0w9PFU55zwg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3q%2B3kO2puQu6B7ejxOjbZSSF7Aw_dx47D0w9PFU55zwg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/7DBDB515-BE29-4523-9DE3-5ABF3BE08E77%40ulb.ac.be.
