> On 27 Sep 2019, at 20:40, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:09 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
That is imply false, and a totally distracting remark to remind us that you have no objection at all. Just try to convince even one people on this list, sufficiently well that he or she could explain your point to us. Or publish a paper. But nobody can explain your point, and your long post is, to talk in your term simple and pure distracting BULLSHIT! You play with word only. You have not been able to provide an algorithm to predict what happen from the first person point of view, and replacing “indeterminacy” by “ambiguity” does not work as we have agreed on the notion of personal identity. Then you use the FPI in your interpretation of Everett/QM, all the time, and your distinction introduced between the feeling of a machine-guy in a superposition state, and a duplicated guy in arithmetic does not make any sense. Bruno > > John K Clark >> On 26 Sep 2019, at 21:23, John Clark <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:23 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv17h0rOyaEfXMiMUG2K%2BzvcH0sbF75LUD1Vq0bEHgv-5Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv17h0rOyaEfXMiMUG2K%2BzvcH0sbF75LUD1Vq0bEHgv-5Q%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/65989A17-FE32-4F99-A192-56657060F6DB%40ulb.ac.be.
