On 12 Jan 2017, at 02:41, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>>There is only one fundamental difference between your
example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL
world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't
conjure something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the
integer that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't
exist.
> Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the
inference rules.
But inference requires reason, and reason requires a brain, and
all known brains require matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of
evolution because it contradicts the bible.
I think you first used that exact same insult in 2007 or 2008,
can't you think of a new one.
>> without matter and the laws of physics there can be
nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion
of anything.
> Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there
is still computations which emulates your mind states.
How on Earth does that imply computationalism is false?? I said
computations need matter,
No computations does not need matter. I can explain if you don't want
to study the elementary books on this. But from your tone I doubt you
try to understand. It is impossible to explain something to someone
who keeps repeating the same mistake again and again.
Bruno
matter exists, so computations exist, and computationalism says
intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed
by the agent's brain, and brains are made of matter that obeys the
laws of physics.
> Computer science books does not compute, but still provides
proof that numbers together with addition and multiplication do
compute.
Addition and multiplication are computations, so you're saying
computations compute. Well I can't argue with that.
>>maybe "God" means an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless
blob in that language, but that's not what the what those
words mean to me or to the English language.
God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the
appearances.
So the answer to EVERY question of the form "why does X look like
that?" is God, and that makes the word "God" totally and completely
useless?
> In math we always extend the meaning of the terms.
In mathematics you create a name "prime numbers" for example and
then define the concept by giving it certain specific properties;
you don't create a the name and then start endless philosophical
discussions of if "prime numbers" are dividable by 3. And you don't
invent the work "klogknee" and then try to figure out what the word
means,
> Playing vocabulary games does not help.
You're accusing me of playing vocabulary games?! You
say God exists, but then you say God doesn't need to be a person,
God doesn't need to smarter than a human, God doesn't need to be
intelligent at all, nor does God need to be conscious. But
nevertheless you insist God exists.
And you accuse me of playing vocabulary games!
>> I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they
have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist
before.
> That has been refuted.
In your dreams perhaps. A definition can conjure itself into
existence but nothing else, to claim otherwise is not just wrong
it's silly.
>> I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the
entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless
because there would be no one to give it a meaning.
> But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means
that you have change your mind since our last conversation.
No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more
than 3 physical things in existence, in fact there are even
more than 6.
> The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the
presence of humans or aliens to get this.
In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical
things in the cosmos, there are even more than 6.
>> Or put it another way, it would make no difference to
ANYTHING if 6/3=2 was true or not.
> It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made.
If you say that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes
the theory inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the
pope (if you know Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1).
That would changes things.
If I remember correctly Bertrand Russell started with the axiom
"one is zero" and was able to logically deduce "I am the Pope" ; but
if there was not even one thing in the universe then there would be
no "I" no "Pope" and no "am", so it would make no difference to
anything if I am the Pope or not.
It was discovered empirically that three apples and three
apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two
apples, and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any.
> That would make physics circular.
And in mathematics every correct equation is a tautology.
>I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a
primary physical reality.
Interesting question. You can ask something involving matter that
obeys the laws of physics, something like me, interesting questions,
but you can't ask the number 6 anything.
> Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction.
Both are almost identical and neither can be derived from
deduction and so must be assumed as axioms. The only difference is
mathematical induction claims that under conditions X things
*always* continue but when used in the physical world inductive
inference claims that under condition X things *usually* continue.
As far as intelligent behavior is concerned nothing is more
fundamental than induction.
> But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the
observer interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also
in mathematical induction,
I have no idea what that means.
> like Peano Arithmetic.
Peano arithmetic has induction as an axiom but Robinson
arithmetic doesn't, so Robinson is weaker and even further from
the real physical world than Peano.
> It is not a question of language anyway.
Of course it's a question of language!! "God" is a word, a word
that you love more than its meaning. If "God" means "The creator and
ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme
being. A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having
power over nature or human fortunes." then God does not exist.
If "God" means "an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob"
then it makes absolutely no difference if God exists or not. The
thing that makes the God theory different from every other theory of
the world is that intentional is at the very heart of it, if you
take that away all that remains is a word that means mindless
mush.
> You will find many other definition, and I use the one by
the neoplatonists, whioch is the most general. But I avoid the term
god, unless I reply to a post with that term.
A more general definition is not always or even usually better.
"Stuff" is more general than "number" and "number" is more general
than "prime number". "Fuzzy blob" is pretty general, and pretty
useless.
> Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of
physics
> Why?
There is only one reason I can think of, physics must have
something mathematics does't.
> Well, that is possible, but then you will not survive with
an artificial brain. That's the point.
I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion. Not a
clue.
>> Of course I care what Catholics think, they outnumber me
1.2 billion to one and they have been using the word "God" in a
certain way for 2000 years so I'd say they have ownership of it,
and it would be foolish and cause endless confusion if I started
calling something completely unrelated, like my can opener,
"God". The Catholic God, Bruno's God, and my can opener, are
all equally distant from each other in concept space, so they
should't have the same name!
> You confess base your thinking on what the majority says,
You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When
it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.
> but science does not work that way.
True, but language does work that way. What's the point of knowing
a language spoken only by you? It doesn't matter to Science or
to logic what the meaning of a word is, all they ask is that the
meaning be consistent. It's not up to science to give meanings to
words, it's up to people.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
