Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-16 Thread John Clark
tement is neither true nor false because you have not told us what you mean by "Abby". I have but you haven't. ​*>​* > *So before the teleportation, should Abby prepare to become Abby-1 or > Abby-2?* > I don't understand the question. Forget teleportation and people duplicating mach

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-12 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​ If you want to use Euclidean geometry or even the sort of non-Euclidean geometry Einstein used you've got to use standard arithmetic, but there are other ways. For example, in the 7-adic system the distance between 5

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-09 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> By using p-adic numbers mathematicians found more than a century ago >> there are a infinity of ways the numbers could be arranged because there >> are a infinity of ways distance between numbers could be defined and all of >> them are

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-08 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: *​>​You are starting to sound like John Clark in refusing to accept the > consequences of duplication. In your duplication thought experiments* ​What ​ consequences of duplication ​ have I refused to accept? ​ *​>​Maudlin wrot

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-08 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> * ​​p​**ysicists assume arithmetic to make sense of the observations.* >> >> >> ​>>​ >> Yes, whatever way that numbers are manipulated it must be consistent with >> PHYSICAL observations, if physical reality was different

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-07 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> So you now admit that the experts who specialize in the study of physical >> phenomena have, just as I said, "never seen a demonstration of a >> non-physical calculation “ . > > > *​>​Yes. Computability is born in mathematical logic,

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-05 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​>>​ ​ ​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a book and nobody ever will. >>> >>> >>> ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> * ​* >>> *That contradicts all publication in the field.* >>> >> >> ​>>​ >>> Maybe

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-04 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> ​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a >> book and nobody ever will. > > > ​>* ​* > *That contradicts all publication in the field.* > Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-03 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: ​> ​ > These ideas about algorithms that can detect nonsense seem to run afoul of > Turing's proof there is no universal TM that can determine if all TMs can > halt or not. Yes, Turing said you can never

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-03 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​ > *Both copies knows perfectly well how to answer them after.* > ​ And both answers I not only correctly predicted yesterday without the slightest trace if indeterminacy I did so easily; I said the guy who would see Moscow would answer "I

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-02 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *​>​you claim to have an algorithm able to predict what anyone could live > after a self-duplication.* I have an algorithm that can detect gibberish and gibberish questions have no answer. The algorithm works this way, if even after the

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-02 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>​ > *The demonstration is given in those books. It is long and technical.* > ​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a book and nobody ever will. ​>​ > *The book explains that computation is a purely

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-01 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> ​If “0 things exist” is true, I don’t see how “0 things exist” can exist. >> >> > > ​>>​ >> If if “0 things exist” is true then “0 things exist” exists, > > ​>​ > That does not follow. If the universe is empty, i.e. u = { },

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-01 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *> But you should not confuse the arithmetical reality with a book, be it > virtual or relatively material.* One of us is very confused that much is certain. You think arithmetical reality is the only reality there is and the book is real but

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-30 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *> Nowhere anybody has ever defended the idea that books or texts can > think. You are the only one mentioning that* I don’t believe that’s true. There is a fellow by the name of Bruno Marchal who is constantly mentioning that pure

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-06-29 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *​> ​If “0 things exist” is true, I don’t see how “0 things exist” can > exist.* > If if “0 things exist” is true then “0 things exist” exists, so if its true then it's not true. If its not true then something exists. And from that we can

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-06-29 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > ​> *​* > *You presume there can be no true facts about nothing?* > If a fact existed about nothing then there is something. Maybe you think I'm being unfair but I want a nothing on steroids, and I'm not doing anything that others didn't do

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-28 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *​>​You can store a sequence of numbers in one number. For example you can > store the sequence 7, 7, 7, 9, 8, 7, 9, 7, 6, 6 in the number x with > (unique) prime decomposition* > How can pure numbers do a unique prime decomposition? I don't

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-28 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> ​>​ >> nobody around here has provided even a hint of how pure numbers could do >> the same thing. > > > *T​>​hat is done in all (good) textbook in mathematical logic or > computability theory.* ​Ah yes, that wonderful textbook you

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-28 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote: *​>​We need silicon only to tell us what to ignore. Too many infinite bit > strings exist in math, they exist in e, Pi, sqrt(2), etc. The infinite > messages and data is all there, stored forever. What we ask of our > computers is to tell us

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-28 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>>​ >> ​One doesn't exist and zero doesn't exist. No difference.​ >> >> > > ​>​ > If they're not different then how can "no thing" a.k.a. "zero things" > remain consistent if there is no difference between "zero things" and "1 > thing"? > A

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

2018-06-27 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>>​ >> The Casimir effect has demonstrated that the vacuum between 2 conductive >> planes that are very very close to each other contains negative energy >> density. > > > * ​>​Not exactly. There is just less positive energy density than

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-06-27 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: *​>​1. Premise: No thing (nothing) exists.* > *2. By "1" it follows that "0 things exist" is true. * > ​If ​ ​"​ "0 things exist" is true ​"​ then "0 things exits" exists; but if its true then it can't exist exist. > ​> ​ > *Further it also

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

2018-06-27 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > *> My tendency is to say that wormholes do not exist.* It seems to me if wormholes existed we should expect to see as many White Holes as Black Holes and they should be easier to detect than Black

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>>​ >> I'll be damned if I understand how all the Diophantine equations in the >> world put together can store one bit of information, much less a unlimited >> amount, you certainly never said how on earth they could do it, and the >>

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-26 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>>​ >> You could argue that all modern science has done is prove the vacuum is >> not nothing and although Leibniz was wrong about that the question remains >> valid, but I would say expecting science to explain how a nothing that is >> so

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-25 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote: *​>​Study what diophantine equations are capable of (for example, considers > the examples I provided in my original post), and you will see they possess > an unlimited working memory.* > I did and I'll be damned if I understand how all the

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-25 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >* Leibniz: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"* ​ By "nothing" Leibniz meant a vacuum, today we know far more about the vacuum than he did. Nothing, that is to say zero, is far too precise a number for quantum mechanics, it permits

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-25 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Russell Standish wrote: *>​> ​* If I define physics as the thing that can tell the difference >> between a correct computation and a incorrect computation and between a >> corrupted memory and a uncorrupted memory, and as long as we're at this >> philosophic

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-23 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > *A physical computation is required for a physical observer to get a > result, but that remains true when the physical computation + the observer > are themselves the product of a computation* > If both the physical computation and

Re: Fwd: "Finally, A Problem That Only Quantum Computers Will Ev

2018-06-22 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:20 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ > The birth of a fundamentally distinct new class of problems. > BQP has carved out a realm of its own... beyond the reach of the combined > set PH = {P, NP} > This new

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-22 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>* ​* > *The only thing I am asking is:* > *1) Physics -> Brains, Cars, Atoms, Etc.* > *2) ??? -> Physics -> Brains, Cars, Atoms, Etc.* > *Do we have enough information to decide between the above two theories? > Have we really ruled out

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-21 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> *​* > *We can use physical analogies to reason about mathematics,* > We can't reason about ANYTHING without physics, that's why our physical brain is so handy. > ​>* ​* > *but doing so cannot prove that physical things are more

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-21 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:04 PM, wrote: *​>​Send a check for $5000 payable to Brent Meeker. When it clears, I will > send my check for the same amount* Wow, I just figured out what your real name is! You are Abacha Tunde, the rich Nigerian Prince of scam fame. ​John K Clark​ -- You received

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-21 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>> ​ >> If mathematics was more fundamental than physics then Intel would be a >> ridiculously unnecessary company and would have gone bankrupt decades ago, >> but physics can clearly do things that mathematics can't and so the company >> is

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-20 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>>​ >> No I'm not disputing that, but computational relations couldn't exist >> without computations, and computations couldn't exist without matter that >> obeys the laws of physics. >> > > ​>* ​* > *Why couldn't it be the other way around?

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-20 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:22 PM, wrote: *>I found an old version of my resume and gave you the exact references, > which you found without my help.* I have no idea what you're talking about. I looked and I could not find 2 scientific papers written by Alan Grayson or even one, and if they

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-20 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>* ​* > *I am not sure I am seeing the relevance of your comments to what I > said.​ ​Are you disputing that computational relations are embodied by > statements concerning solutions to certain polynomial equations?* > No I'm not disputing

What the Earth looked like

2018-06-20 Thread John Clark
I like this, it shows you what the Earth looked like with an animated globe between now and 750 million years ago: http://dinosaurpictures.org/ancient-earth#0 John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-20 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:46 PM, wrote: *​> ​And Yes, I did write two scientific papers with Carl Sagan.* >> >> >> ​ >> ​>>​ >> Bullshit​. >> >> > >* How much money are you willing to wager? Put your money where your mouth > is. It must be placed in an escrow account. AG* > I can't do that

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-19 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:58 PM, wrote: > *​> ​I think you should admit that bringing up the energy change of a > photon in a quantum experiment being caused by the expansion of the > universe is just plain dumb.* OK I admit it, saying a measured energy change found in a quantum experiment

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-06-19 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: *​>​Below is some Python code*...[blah blah] *John Clark often tells Bruno > mathematical truth won't put Intel out of business* ​Yes, I have been known to say that from time to time.​ > ​>​ > but > ​But?! This code c

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-19 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > ​> ​ > practically "The Copenhagen Interpretation" is just "The Not MWI" > interpretation. > I agree, and that means there is no such thing as *THE* Copenhagen Interpretation. It means "all the problems have been ironed out so just shut

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-19 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:29 PM, wrote: *​> **> I meant coming apart NOW. Bringing up the expansion rate of the > universe when the discussion is about the behavior of a photon in quantum > experiment is just plain dumb. AG* > ​ ​ So says the man (or more likely boy) who claimed who claimed to

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-19 Thread John Clark
Somebody wrote: ​ > > *That's what determinism means. It means EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED BY > THE PAST. * Yes, deterministic means the laws of physics are deterministic, but Super Determinism claims much much more than that. Even if you knew all the deterministic laws of physics perfectly that

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-18 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:37 PM, wrote: > Oh, so now the expansion of the universe is effecting photon energy in a > quantum experiment? If space is expanding thee is no way a photons energy could not be reduced. Where did that energy go? It didn't have to go anywhere because energy is not

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-18 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:54 PM, wrote: *> If you accept Inflation, the universe is many orders of magnitude larger > than what we can observe. How much larger depends on the model of Inflation > one applies. However, AFAIK, there's no persuasive theory that claims its > extent in space or time

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-18 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM, wrote: *​> ​Does it split into two photons, each having the same energy as the > original photon?​ * If so, where does the added energy come from. It doesn't need to come from anywhere because we've known for nearly a century that in General Relativity energy

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-18 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: >JKC has mis-stated CI. CI didn't say QM as embodied in the SWE was the > theory of the world. Bohr and Heisenberg both held that theclassical > world was logically prior to the quantum If so then forget string theory, Newton

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-18 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>* ​* > *Superdeterminism says you and a remote partner could decide to use the > digits of Pi to pseudorandomly select angles of measurement in a Bell > experiment, then decide to use the digits of Euler's number. Yet somehow, > the universe

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-18 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:54 PM, wrote: >> What about it, what is your theory of decoherence and how does it make >> the CI less dumb? > > > > *Not that I'm a great fan of decoherence theory, but it doest includes > the apparatus, observer, and the rest of the environment in the measuring >

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-17 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 7:14 PM, wrote: ​>>​ >> What progress? The CI made no sense when it was first proposed 90 years >> ago and it makes no more sense today. >> > ​>​ > I told you; decoherence theory. > ​What about it, what is your theory of decoherence and how does it make the CI less

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-17 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 5:13 PM, wrote: ​>>​ >> Copenhagen which isn’t even wrong. Copenhagen isn’t weird its self >> contradictory, it says quantum mechanics is the theory of the world and >> everything must follow it, but when a measurement is made (which is so >> important to Copenhagen) it

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-17 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:12 AM, wrote: > *​> ​since Maxwell's equations have advanced wave solutions, why do you > prefer the MWI compared to the Transactional Interpretation?* I think Jason answered that question very well. But who knows ​,​ the Transactional Interpretation could turn out

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-16 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: *​>​That's where MWI gets fuzzy. Do all the submicroscopic events that > make to macroscopic difference create different worlds? * > ​Yes, or at least that's what Everett said.​ > ​> > *That can't be right because "worlds" are classical

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-16 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 2:38 PM, wrote *> Delusion piled upon delusion. If you're so sure about the truth of the > mathematics you rely on,* I'm not sure of anything, I just think Many Worlds is the least crazy explanation. If somebody ever has a better idea I'll abandon ​M​ any Worlds in a

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

2018-06-16 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 5:57 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > *Another universe comes into existence when Joe the Plumber performs, say, > a spin measurement.* > But a measurement (whatever in the world that means) does not need to be made and there is nothing special about Joe, if Everett is right the same

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

2018-06-16 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:17 PM, wrote: ​>>​ >> If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye >> then you've already been proven wrong. A drum .03 millimeters across made >> up of trillions of atoms was put into a Schrodinger Cat state back in 2010, >> it was both

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

2018-06-15 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM, wrote: ​> *​* > *I am implicitly denying that decoherence theory can be valid for macro > objects * If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye then you've already been proven wrong. A drum .03 millimeters across made up of

John Preskill on Quantum Computing

2018-06-13 Thread John Clark
I thought this video was very good, if you're interested in quantum computers you should take a look. https://blog.ycombinator.com/john-preskill-on-quantum-computing/ John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-11 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ >> why in the world did you say " With mechanism, obviously a soul, or a >> first person experience can be duplicated from a third person pov. But not >> from a first person pov”? > > > ​> *​* > *I think this has ben explained many

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-10 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​that is one (of many) problems with your “proof”. You start off by >> assuming a physical mechanism can duplicate everything > > *​>​False. I start from the assumption that I can survive from a digital > emulation of my brain at some

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-10 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> I don't care who led what, and neither physics nor mathematical logic is >> religion. I asked 3 times but you did not provide one single example of an >> improvement in theology between 500BC and 500AD . Not one. > > > ​>​ > *The

Helping Moore's law continue

2018-06-09 Thread John Clark
The reason some people were saying Moore's law is soon going to come to a end i ​s​ because of quantum tunneling, when switches are very small and are supposed to be off there will still be electrons flowing through it, and this leakage current increases exponentially the smaller the switch gets.

World’s Fastest Supercomputer

2018-06-09 Thread John Clark
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/technology/supercomputer-china-us.html? rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness 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

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-08 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Here? Where? You said there were many improvements in theology between >> 500BC and 500AD and I asked for examples, and for the second time you were >> unable to provide a single one. ​ > > > ​>* ​* > *I provided them; already

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-08 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> Today "you" means the man who is currently experiencing H, tomorrow "you" >> means the man who is currently experiencing W and remembers experiencing H >> yesterday; and tomorrow "you" also means the man who is currently >>

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-08 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I said information was as close as you can get to the traditional > religious concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific > method. In the past I pointed out exactly what those similarities and > differences were, I will

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-07 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I meant: here are the improvements described, in the works of Pythagorus > to Damascus. > ​Here? Where? You said there were many improvements in theology between 500BC and 500AD and I asked for examples, and for the second time you

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-07 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> *​* > *I know perfectly well what the personal pronoun “you” will mean, as its > meaning will not change.* > Of course it will change. Today "you" means the man who is currently experiencing H, tomorrow "you" means the man who is

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-07 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > ​> ​ > I don't want to get into arguments about pronouns, Then you don't want to talk about Bruno's ideas because personal pronouns are vitally important to it, they are the rug that Bruno uses to cover the gaping holes in Bruno's logic.

Green stars (was Primary matter)

2018-06-07 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > *> hasn't the Sun been getting hotter, which would mean moving from yellow > toward green rather than the other way. And it's still still more a yellow > than green store. * There are intensely red stars and there are pale blue stars but

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-06 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ​>> ​ > * From -500 to +500, theology has progressed a lot.* > I > ​>> ​I > 'd like to see some examples of that. > *​> ​Pythagorus, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, > Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, … Damascius. That

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-06 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​ > *in Helsinki, as a computationalist, you know in advance that whatever > you will live is a definite unique experience* > ​But as a ​ computationalist ​ YOU don't know today what the goddamn personal pronoun "*YOU*​" will mean tomorrow

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-06 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > *Science answers plenty of certain types of "why"​ ​questions:* > It would be more accurate to say Science answers "how” questions; "why" questions imply intent and intent needs somebody to have a intention and there may not be one.

Re: Entanglement

2018-06-04 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:50 AM, wrote: > *> when decoherence or the MWI implies the creation of full-blown worlds > (that we can't observe), there seems to be a large body of opinion that > accepts this bizarre result without serious criticism that there's no > mechanism or process for

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-04 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >> ​>​ >> Free-will is NOT *often* described that way, I have but I've never heard >> ​ >> anyone else do so; > > > ​> ​ > I'm _sure_ you've heard me describe it that way. It's in my book. ​I'm glad to hear I'm not alone!​ > ​> ​ > My

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-04 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> *​* > * From -500 to +500, theology has progressed a lot.* > ​ I'd like to see some examples of that. Religion didn't progress logically it just got dumber. Moses didn't claim to be God, Jesus did. And the entire crucifixion thing is

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-04 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> There is absolutely nothing unique about that silly personal diary of >> yours and there is nothing unique about your memories either because >> because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED and that is what the word "duplicated" >> means. > > >

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-03 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​>* ​* > > *There have been tremendous philosophical advances in modern history > outside of the natural sciences.* Like what? Edwin Hubble was not payed by the philosophy department of any university and yet he made philosophical

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-03 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> If you believe that is not possible then you must believe the most >> important part of us is supernatural and can not be duplicated because it >> is not amenable to the scientific method or even to logic. In other words >> you believe in

Re: Primary matter

2018-06-02 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: *>> I'd like to see Bruno actually quote some well known philosophers or >> scientist using the term.* > > > Materialism vs. Idealism is one of the oldest philosophical debates, Yes, and like all old philosophical debates philosophers have

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-06-01 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> >>> *The 1p-you is defined by the sequence of memories personally >>> accessible​* >> >> > >> That does not define a unique object if the world contains 1p-you >> duplicating machines as it does in your thought experiment , > > > >*How

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-30 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The 1p-you is defined by the sequence of memories personally accessible > ​ That does not define a unique object if the world contains 1p-you duplicating machines as it does in your thought experiment ​, therefore it is nonsensical

Re: Role of Schrodinger's equation for spin 1/2 particle

2018-05-30 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 6:55 AM, wrote: > *> What is the role, if any, of Schrodinger's equation for determining the > state and evolution of a spin 1/2 particle* In the Schrodinger equation if you rotate a 1/2 spin particle by 360 degrees it looks and behaves differently. You might think that

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-30 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > *Just try to refute step 3 without eliminating the distinction between > first and third person view,* > Just try explaining what unique thing the personal pronoun “you” refers to in a world that contains first person view duplicating

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-29 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > *You, Sir, are definitely a troll. Your answer here is just a bunch of > begging the question, and of spreading misinformations, + blatant > inconsistencies, on the very subject of computability. Whatever I would > answer would be

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 6:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > *> You ask me examples of computations?* No, I did not ask you that. I asked you for an example of a computation made WITHOUT THE USE OF MATTER THAT OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. > > *> OK, that is fair enough.Let me give

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-25 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *> I have provided definition of computations, and explicit examples,* I’m not interested in your definitions, examples are VASTLY more important. Definitions can't conjure anything into existence except for more

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-23 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *> You were changing the mathematical definition of computations given >>> independently by Church, Post, Turing, Markov * >> >> ​>​ >> I don't know what definition you're referring to > > ​> ​ > *See any (serious)

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-21 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *> You were changing the mathematical definition of computations given > independently by Church, Post, Turing, Markov ,* I don't know what definition you're referring to but if it doesn't have something about actually

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>​ >> a Turing Machine knows nothing excepts what state it should go into, if >> it should write a 1 or a 0, and if it should move left or right or halt. >> That's it. And yet it can calculate anything that can be

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> A Turing Machine knows no theories > > > ​> ​ > I have no clues why you say so. > I say so because a Turing Machine knows nothing excepts what state it should go into, if it should write a 1 or a 0, and if it

Re: Einstein quote

2018-05-15 Thread John Clark
ut a program that does absolutely nothing when a flash happens or when everything suddenly goes dark, it beats a program that does NOT assume that things usually continue. Induction isn't perfect but it's pretty good, for example inductive reasoning would say if John Clark doesn't exist today he won't ex

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-15 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:38 PM, smitra wrote: ​> ​ > But then, without a solid mathematical model that describes experimental > outcomes, how can one draw any nontrivial conclusions from experiments at > all? > ​ > By observation. We may be very surprised that the cannonball

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-14 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > * ​> ​How do you establish that the proof has no error? Why are we > supposing that the ZFC axiom correctly describes the mathematical system? > How do you establish that the computers haven't made an error?*

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-14 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > you already said, quite wisely, that if you had correctly used the ZFC >> > axioms to produce a proof the Goldbach Conjecture was true but then a >> > computer found a number that violated Goldbach you would

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-13 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I use computer for “universal Turing machine”. That notion assumes (and is > Turing-equivalent with (very) elementary arithmetic). > ​ A Turing Machine knows no theories and it operates under the laws of physics

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-11 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ >> If you started with the basic axioms of number theory and proved the >> Goldbach Conjecture is true, and you were convinced you had not made an >> error in the proof, and then the next day a computer found a huge

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2018-05-10 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>> ​ >> if you can not then the word "model" has no meaning. Unlike the >> Continuum Hypothesis the Goldbach Conjecture is subject to the potential of >> experimental falsification, if logicians eventually proved that

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >