On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:09 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> *You repeat yourself.* > I repeat myself?! How often have you said "*according to Plato*" or "*in your religion*" or "*your God matter*", and of course your standard rubber stamp phrase you use whenever I've shown an obvious contradiction in your ideas and you can't think of anything better to say "*you play with words*" . *> What you say has been answered more than once, and you have not comment > it. * *BULLSHIT! *I wrote a long detailed post commenting on what you said and all I got back was something a fourth grader could have written between watching cartoons on TV. *> you dismiss the main point of my post systematically.* Yes, and that's exactly what somebody should do when they hear a theory they think is wrong, they should show exactly why it is wrong and do so *SYSTEMATICALLY*. I destroyed your previous post with a very long post of my own and your only rebuttal is a few lines that must have taken you about 45 seconds to write, and I interpret that to mean you surrender. And by the way, I still don't think you've ever heard of p-adic numbers before. John K Clark > On 26 Sep 2019, at 21:23, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:23 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > Of course it's important, it means arithmetic took marching orders from > physics not the other way around, and it's the reason most people would say > 300 is larger than 8/45; the 3-adic distance metric is perfectly self > consistent but it doesn't work worth a damn in physics. > > * > in your god ‘“matter”* [...] >> > > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing > intelligent ever follows. > > >> 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.* >> > > Nonsense! A static block universe would be a universe that does not > change along the time dimension, and that universe would not only defeat > General Relativity but also defeats Quantum Mechanics and even Newtonian > physics, not to mention even the most casual observations. A static block > universe is NOT the universe we live in because things change along the > time dimension. > > >>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.* >> > > Then all purely *mathematical *Turing "Machines" are *not* universal. > because there is only one integer number 2 so if you change it by adding > one to it then you can't use integer number 2 for anything else and the > number line now has a hole in it, and the question "how much is 1+1" has no > answer. However there are lots of atoms so if you can change a physical > molecule's shape you still have lots of physical molecules with that exact > same original shape that you can use for some other calculation. > > > *That is your religion* [...] >> > > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing > intelagent ever follows. > > >> 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.* >> > > I won't even bother to ask how you reached that bizarre conclusion because > I know from experience you wouldn't respond with anything coherent. > > >> > *such a religion is* [,,,] >> > > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing > intelagent ever follows. > > >> >> 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, >> > > Yes I agree, a relative change is all you need, but if you can somehow > magically change the integer number two to something else that change would > be relative to EVERYTHING else including other numbers so arithmetic would > never be the same because you don't have any spare integer number twos in a > warehouse somewhere that you can use as a emergency backup. Physics doesn't > have that problem because there are lots of atoms. > > *> In your religion* [...] >> > > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing > intelagent ever follows. > > >> It doesn't make one bit of difference if a brain is primary or not, >> >> *> For consciousness here and now, no. * >> > > I thought the topic was consciousness, if it is why do you keep asking if > matter is primary, if it isn't why do you keep asking if I should say yes > or no to the doctor?? > > *> I said only that if you believe in primary physical things, then you >> need to abandon saying yes to the doctor,* >> > > Wow. If you're going to contradict yourself you should at least have the > good grace to waite a decent interval before doing so and not in the very > next line of the same post. > > >> *That religion is* [...] >> > > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing > intelligent ever follows. > > > *You are playing with words all the time.* >> > > And "you are playing with words" is the only thing you can think to say > when I use words to show that your ideas are logically inconsistent, you've > been using that same line for years and it doesn't improve with age. > > *> Plato’s conception of reality* [...] > > > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing > intelligent ever follows. > > >> It doesn't have enough memory. > > > > *> That is not relevant for Turing universality. The universal Turing >> machine has a finite tape,* > > > Unlike the Busy Beaver Function the Ackermann Function *IS* computable > and 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv17h0rOyaEfXMiMUG2K%2BzvcH0sbF75LUD1Vq0bEHgv-5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
