> On 24 Sep 2019, at 00:43, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Jason thinks I must be suffering from buyer's remorse because I "spent > $80,000 when he is already saved by arithmetic" he concludes this because on > December 26 2012 at 12:34 PM I said " A better question is do the natural > numbers need a reason to exist? I don't know the answer to that but my hunch > is no". However in another post on December 26 2012 at 1:26 PM, less than 2 > hours later I said "it is a fact that thinking of information as something > physical has over the last century proven itself to be remarkably fertile and > has led to the discovery of new knowledge, while thinking of information as > ethereal was found to be sterile and has led to nowhere and nothing". > > The existence of the natural numbers may or may not be a brute fact, but it > is certainly NOT a brute fact that we teach our children the particular > metric to measure the distance a natural number is from zero that yields > results such as 2+2=4 and not one of the infinite number of other self > consistent ones that the P-adic metric can provide. It is not a brute fact > because there is a reason for it, we teach that one and only that one to > children because it is the only one that is consistent with the physical > world. And because that one is far more intuitive than any P-adic one. And it > is more intuitive precisely because it is consistent with the physical world > we see around us and P-adic is not. > > > However he uses the static nature of arithmetical truth to presume that it > > cannot represent "real computations". > > There is a easy way to tell a "real computation" from the other sort. Your > computer can make one sort of computation without a battery or a AC power > outlet, but for the other sort your computer needs electricity. And you can > *do* something with one sort of calculation, but you can't *do* anything with > the other sort of "calculation". > > > But he has not indicated why fundamental change (which I take to mean > > successive creation and destruction of states) should be necessary to > > computation, > > Do I really need to indicate why you can't create or destroy something > without making a change? I don't think so. But I think you need to indicate > how, out of the set of all computations, you can pick the correct ones from > the incorrect ones without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > I think meaning needs contrast. Michelangelo's David was carved from a single > huge block of marble that was a 100 million years old, but it would be silly > to say David was 100 million years old and Michelangelo did nothing but > unpack it from the marble that was not part of David. And to make a real > calculation rather than a pretend toy one you have to differentiate the > correct from the incorrect, you not only have to mention the correct answer > you have to make it clear that all the other answers, and there are a > infinite number of them, are wrong. And for that you need a physical machine. > > > I think John has also argued against philosophical zombies. > > I have indeed.
But then you accept infinitely many zombie in arithmetic, or deny the theorem in arithmetic sating that the computations exist (and *are* computation). > > > John's theory that fundamental change is required leads to an infinity of > > philosophical zombies existing within the arithmetical computations, > > My theory is NOTHING exists within arithmetical computations because > arithmetical computations don't exist False with exist taken in the same sense as in “their exists no biggest prime number”. > (existence being defined as stuff that can *do* things), In metaphysics or theology when done with the scientific attitude, this invoke your personal ontological commitment. That is as funny as the drawing of the guy doing a proof and invoking a miracle. That is not even religion, but pseudo-religion or pseudo-science. > but physical computations certainly exist and can *do" all sorts of things. That is like the priest of the institutionalised religion. You talk like if you knew the truth. That is automatically invalid. Bruno > > > 1. Can the time evolution of John Clark's brain be described by the > > solutions to a particular Diophantine equation? (e.g. an equation with > > variables t and s, where t = number of Plank times since start of > > emulation, and s = the wave function describing all the particles in your > > skull) > > It can unless physics needs Real Numbers and it probably doesn't. Yes > Schrodinger's equation uses Real Numbers because it assumes space and time > are continuous, but that is probably only approximately true. And there are > a infinite number of equations and mathematically there is absolutely nothing > special about Schrodinger's equation, the only thing special about that > particular equation is it conforms with our observations of how the physical > world behaves. > > And I'm very surprised that as soon as you mentioned the Planck Time in the > above you didn't realize you had left the world of pure dimensionless > numbersand was talking numbers with physical units associated with them, like > measures of time and space and mass and energy and electrical charge. > > > 2. Are those brain states found in the collection of solutions to that > > equation reflective of a philosophical zombie? > > No. > > > could we build a John Clark robot that behaved exactly as John Clark would > > by searching for solutions to this equation, which would not be conscious > > No. And it would not behave exactly like John Clark, it would not behave at > all because without physics there would be no way to search through solutions > to that equation or to any other. > > 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/CAJPayv25UYFmakWOt%2Bp%2BakA7NvadzGD830p5GYjr%3DVXp7S%3DkEw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv25UYFmakWOt%2Bp%2BakA7NvadzGD830p5GYjr%3DVXp7S%3DkEw%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/B142FAAA-D5DB-46D4-8691-EF98B88D5C87%40ulb.ac.be.
