Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 31 May 2015, at 18:38, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 31, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Other than randomness nobody has ever seen anything in the physical world that was not computable. Physics uses real and complex numbers, and use analysis (which is second order arithmetic). That's nice, but other than randomness (an event without a cause) There are different sort of randomness, most of them capable of mathematical definition (with and without Church thesis). An event without a cause is a metaphysical or theological notion. In the type of approach I have develkoped, you would need to make clear all the assumptions. nobody has ever seen anything in the physical world that was not computable. I can agree with this. Note that if we are machine, we will not been able to infer if something is not computable, or admit a simple explanation which elude us. But computable does not necessarily mean predictable, sometimes the computation will take as long to perform as it takes the system to evolve, it's as if even nature doesn't have a shortcut and it must perform the same calculations you do to figure out what it's going to do next. There are no standard defifinition of computability for the class of analytical function and sets. That's nice, but I'm not talking about the class of analytical function and sets, I'm talking about computing what a physical system will do, So you see the problem. Although we can't find anything non-computable in nature, the physicists still use a highly non computable theories and ontologies. This does not mean that there is something non computable, as the theories on machines also climbs on the non-computable hierarchies, if only because machines like to contemplate those hierarchies. or in the case of Quantum Mechanics what it will probably do. Church thesis only equate a notion of intuitive computability, an ability to get a result following discrete well determined elementary digital steps, with computability in some formal system Only?! I meant without the need of assuming or using explicit concepts of physics. This does not mean that the human notion of computability, like his notion of numbers, have not been influenced by its physical development, but the notion by themselves does not belongs to the subject matter of physics. Indeed, theoretical computer science or recursion theory are branch of mathematical logic, like proof theory and model theory. (lambda calculus, etc.) And one of the etc is a Turing Machine, a device made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Come on. Most textbooks define a Turing machine by a non empty and finite set of quadruples, where a quadruple is an expression (a finite sequence) of symbols chosen from q1, q2, (called state symbol), S0, S1, S2, ... (tape symbols) and with the L (do on the left), and R (go on the right symbols). They have to be of the form q_i S_j, S_k, q_l or q_i S_j, R, q_l or q_i S_j, L, q_l, with the usual intuitive meaning that if the machine is in state q_i and in front of symbol S_j then she write S_k (resp. go to the left of tape, go to to right). I can say more on Turing machine if people are interested. They have a nice notion of instantaneous description, and the notion of piece of computations that we need to use in the UDA problem can be defined by finite sequence of instantaneous description brought by a (universal) Turing machine. But the key point here is just that a Turing machine is a non empty finite set of quadruples. It is a precise *finite* mathematical object. We can enumerate all Turing machine. It is in that context that Turing discovered the universal Turing machine, an abstract computer, which is itself a finite set of quadruples. it is a universal number, when we look at this in another universal system: Robinson arithmetic. It does not require the assumption that there is a physical universe. A Turing Machine does assume matter that obeys the laws of physics, Not at all. What is true, is that the notion of machine has a physical look, which can help the physicists to get the notion, but the combinators and lambda calculus, or Post production system, or LISP, are much less related a priori with the physical. Matiyasevic says explicitly that although Turing machine can be described in purely mathematical set-theoretic terminology, he adopts the *convention* (my emphasis) of describing Turing machine as though they were physical devices. It prevents oif too much jargon, in a context where nobody doubt what we are talking about: indeed matyazevic will shows of Turing machine can be emulated by diophantine polynomial relations (hardly physical stuff). When discussing metaphysics, this pedagogy apparently can lead to confusion. and a Turing Machine is equivalent to Lambda Calculus. And in fact
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 1 June 2015 at 13:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 31, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A Turing Machine does assume matter that obeys the laws of physics It assumes that an infinite tape is available. A Turing Machine assumes a unlimited tape, that is to say if you start to run out of tape you can order up more tape; it would only need an infinite amount of tape if a infinite number of calculations were required. A Turing Machine is actually an *algorithm* Yes, a algorithm that is a set of instructions that explains how to organize matter that obeys the laws of physics in such a way that it can make any finite calculation. It doesn't explain how to organise matter - which is obvious from the fact that all sorts of systems can be Turing-universal, including ones based on abstract sets of rules. The fact that to build one we have to use matter is a contingent fact; it has nothing to do with the (so-called) machine. Similarly (to take a simpler example) there are many ways one can add two numbers together, but that doesn't mean that addition is a material process. At best, addition is something we abstract out from a large number of different material processes (people operating abacuses, suitably trained brains thinking through the calculation, mechanical and electronic calculators, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc). Yet if performed correctly the calculation always gives the same result regardless of the physical medium used - which suggests that an abstract process is being instantiated physically, not that it is a physical process (if so, which one?). (As for the metaphysical leap, maybe you should try reading what I actually said and answering that? I know it's more difficult than answering something you've made up yourself specifically to be easy to knock down, but you could try it.) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Samiya proved right
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 30-May-2015, at 6:38 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Here is what stopped Islamic science of 900 years ago. Insh Allah, Ma'shallah! God wills, as god wills! This solves everything, so why study things further. Allah is in control of it all. All is me'toub! Fated by Allah. So studying how photosynthesis works, or what the moon is made from. The moon is made of stone and created by Allah-so what more do we need to know. All is in Allah's hands, and He is the best judge to know! And thus Muslim civilisation suffered the consequence of not heeding to the repeated advise in the Quran to contemplate on nature and use intelligence. Just as contemplation and use of intelligence is advised in the Quran, so also is it advised to say 'In Sha Allah'. I understand the 'In Sha Allah' [if God wills] and 'Ma Sha Allah' [as God willed] as a reminder to keep us mindful of the Uncertainty Principle, in that it applies not only to the quantum level, but cascades on to everything. Saying 'In Sha Allah' and 'Ma Sha Allah' reminds us that no matter how earnestly we resolve to do something or how hard we tried, the decision is always with Allah. In this temporal realm, we can only 'choose' to try to do or not do something, however whether we are able to do it or not, and the outcome of our efforts, is determined and decreed by God. This helps to keep us going even when things don't seem to turn out right, as we are assured that all efforts are being recorded and will be compensated in the Hereafter. I suppose one way to understand it is in terms of a software whose designer codes in all outcomes, and the results, though based on user-choices, are already coded in by the designer. The designer is always in full control and the decision is always as the designer designed it. I suppose I should acknowledge here that, I do find, on the personal level, God's help and facilitation of matters that seem insurmountable to me, yet stating 'In Sha Allah' [if God wills] in earnestness makes the matter easy and manageable. Alhamdolillah [All Praise and Thanks to God] Ma Sha Allah: http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=$yA#(5:48:31) In Sha Allah: http://quran.com/18/23-24 Samiya Please, I repeat, the beliefs of Muslims or people of any faith for that matter, will not serve as an excuse for any of us. We will all be judged individually. God doesn't need us, we need God. Samiya -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 30, 2015 11:24 am Subject: Re: Samiya proved right God created humans and knows everything about us and within us. I'm sure there will be no injustice done to anybody. The analogies you give are between humans. We do not know our own selves: subconscious, composition details, thoughts, mind, etc. , let alone claiming to know another human. We cannot apply that reasoning to the One who created us, sustains us and is aware of everything manifest and hidden throughout the heavens and earth. Samiya On 30-May-2015, at 4:42 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: No compulsion when the choice is between Heaven and Hell - and on the basis of something we can't remember having done...? Let's try that in a non-religious context. But, m'lud, I warned the victim that I was going to murder him if he went through with his planned visit to Midsomer - and then I erased his memory of our meeting. So clearly his murder is all his fault, and not mine. I'm not sure the defence would get very far on that basis. If it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that God and Heaven and Hell really do exist, then no rational agent would choose NOT to worship God, as Pascal pointed out. But the idea that despite having no sensible knowledge on which to base his or her decisions, it's still the victim's fault if he fails to avoid Hell, is the logic of a psychopath. Now look what you made me do! he says as he tortures you. On 30 May 2015 at 13:11, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 29-May-2015, at 5:41 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 30, 2015, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:33 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 May 2015 at 16:34, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: If we do not make the necessary effort, we will end up in the Fire due to our own negligence. That is known as victim blaming. It's the psychology of a sadist - the same as the rapist's she was asking for it. That's a horrible analogy! Consider the following verses: http://quran.com/7/35-36 O children of Adam, if there come to you messengers from among you relating to you My verses, then whoever fears Allah and reforms - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will
Re: In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion
On 6/1/2015 6:31 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness He doesn't actually say that (and he probably didn't write the headline). What he says is that your consciousness produces illusions and it's not so transparent as people tend to assume. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Samiya proved right
On 2 June 2015 at 14:18, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Just as contemplation and use of intelligence is advised in the Quran, so also is it advised to say 'In Sha Allah'. I understand the 'In Sha Allah' [if God wills] and 'Ma Sha Allah' [as God willed] as a reminder to keep us mindful of the Uncertainty Principle, in that it applies not only to the quantum level, but cascades on to everything. The Quran mentions the Uncertainty Principle??? (If that is really so, then I may be forced to revise my agnosticism...) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
