Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:58 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *Not many scientist are interested in theology, and* [...] And that is my cue to say goodnight because nothing intelligent ever follows. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 11:57, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Those who critics my work are not member of the National Academy of > > Sciences. They are not scientist. > > And those who praise your work are not

Re: Observation versus assumption

ering your home? Look, Bruno has a place at the table, in that he's an academic. Like young, Standish does in Aus.  -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Sun, Oct 6, 2019 5:58 am Subject: Re: Observation versus assumption On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bru

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> Those who critics my work are not member of the National Academy of > Sciences. They are not scientist. * And those who praise your work are not members of the National Academy of Sciences either, real scientists ignore your work because

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 2 Oct 2019, at 23:12, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:22 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > My problem with a tiny part of the academy comes from materialist (even > > marxiste) philosopher, and they have only criticise me for not citing Kant > >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:22 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> My problem with a tiny part of the academy comes from materialist (even > marxiste) philosopher, and they have only criticise me for not citing Kant > (which was false, so they have not really read the work) or mentioning > Hegel, or Marx.

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 30 Sep 2019, at 18:11, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Now, if you know a members of the national Academy of Sciences who would > > have found an error in my thesis, different from the minor (and less minor)

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *Now, if you know a members of the national Academy of Sciences who > would have found an error in my thesis, different from the minor (and less > minor) that I found myself since, just invite him to publish a paper, or to > let it

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 29 Sep 2019, at 21:47, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>You agree with me that you have survived for another day if there is > >>something today that remembers being Bruno Marchal yesterday, and that's >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>You agree with me that you have survived for another day if there is > something today that remembers being Bruno Marchal yesterday, and that's > fine but then you immediately contradict yourself by talking about *THE* first > person even if

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 28 Sep 2019, at 22:46, John Clark wrote: > > You agree with me that you have survived for another day if there is > something today that remembers being Bruno Marchal yesterday, and that's fine > but then you immediately contradict yourself by talking about THE first > person even if

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:35 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: * > Just try to convince even one people on this list,* > Just try to convince even one of the 2,382 members of the National Academy of Sciences. Go ahead try! > > *You play with word only.* > That's what a witness says in a court of law

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 27 Sep 2019, at 20:40, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:09 AM Bruno Marchal > 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

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:09 AM Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Observation versus assumption

John, You repeat yourself. What you say has been answered more than once, and you have not comment it. In a nutshell, you can’t use your ontological commitment if you want to proceed with the scientific method. Then you dismiss the main point of my post systematically. You are wasting the time

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:23 PM Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 20 Sep 2019, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:51 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > you invoke your god [...] > > That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent ever > follows. > > >> And because of p-adic

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:51 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > you invoke your god [...] > That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelligent ever follows. > >> And because of p-adic distance, which I don't think you've ever heard > of, > > *> Gratuitous inference, false

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 21:52, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:34 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > that is your act of faith, and [...] > > That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph. Yet, you invoke your god all the time, and denying it is faith

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *that is your act of faith, and* [...] > That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph. > >> Faster Than Light? Faster? The very concept of speed is meaningless in > the context of pure numbers because speed is change in distance

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 15 Sep 2019, at 12:12, PGC wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:36:54 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Sep 2019, at 13:07, PGC > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Let us discuss ideas, and if you

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 20:55, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > See papers by handy, or the book by Odifreddy, > > Can the papers by handy or the book by Odifreddy make a calculation? If not > why not? Because it is a

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:36:54 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Sep 2019, at 13:07, PGC > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would >> be nice to

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> See papers by handy, or the book by Odifreddy,* > Can the papers by handy or the book by Odifreddy make a calculation? If not why not? > * > which explains that computer science is basically an abstract theory > of localness.* > That's

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 22:58, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > > > >>you can't answer the simplest questions concerning that. If 7 changes to 8 > >>does that mean the number 7 no longer exists? Are there now

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > > >>you can't answer the simplest questions concerning that. If 7 changes to >> 8 does that mean the number 7 no longer exists? Are there now two integer >> 8's and how can one be distinguished from the other? >> > > >> *Imagine a Turing

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 10 Sep 2019, at 20:54, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:06 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>> Numbers can change all the time. > > >> you can't answer the simplest questions concerning that. If 7 changes to > 8 does that mean the number 7 no

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 3:15 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM Bruno Marchal wrote > > >> if the computational capacity of the universe is finite (and I'm not >> saying it is I'm saying if) then n+1 can NOT always be divided by 2 and >> Euclid was flat out wrong. >> >> *> You

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 9 Sep 2019, at 13:07, PGC wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would be > nice to explain what. > > Why? So you can dismiss it until a Stanford entry is written for

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *>>> Numbers can change all the time.* > > >> you can't answer the simplest questions concerning that. If 7 changes > to 8 does that mean the number 7 no longer exists? > > > I*ndeed, locally, * > We're only talking about integers here, so

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 8 Sep 2019, at 22:14, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote > > >> if the computational capacity of the universe is finite (and I'm not > >> saying it is I'm saying if) then n+1 can NOT always be divided by 2 and > >>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would > be nice to explain what. > Why? So you can dismiss it until a Stanford entry is written for you to dismiss with the infamous correct

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM Bruno Marchal wrote >> if the computational capacity of the universe is finite (and I'm not > saying it is I'm saying if) then n+1 can NOT always be divided by 2 and > Euclid was flat out wrong. > > *> You cannot invoke your personal ontological commitment in a

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 7 Sep 2019, at 14:04, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:43 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > The point is that the size of the universe, or even its existence is > > relevant to say that beyond some point a number is no more physical > > divisible

Re: Observation versus assumption

Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would be nice to explain what. I don’t see anything here that I could answer. It just ad hominem insult. Bruno > On 6 Sep 2019, at 13:01, PGC wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:25:59 PM UTC+2, Bruno

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:43 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *> The point is that the size of the universe, or even its existence is > relevant to say that beyond some point a number is no more physical > divisible by some instantiation of a physical computers, but that is > irrelevant with the

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:25:59 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Sep 2019, at 17:43, PGC > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:52:58 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 2 Sep 2019, at 21:48, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, September 2, 2019

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 5 Sep 2019, at 01:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/4/2019 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 2 Sep 2019, at 22:31, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/2/2019 8:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed that can be said

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 4 Sep 2019, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> The reality of being prime means being unable to be divided by any integer > >> except for itself and 1, > > >OK. > > >> and if the amount of computation

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 4 Sep 2019, at 17:43, PGC wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:52:58 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 2 Sep 2019, at 21:48, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 10:57:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 1 Sep 2019, at

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 9/4/2019 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 2 Sep 2019, at 22:31, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 9/2/2019 8:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed that can be said illustrated from the fact that in string theory, to get the mass of the photon right, we use 1+2+3+4+5+… =

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The reality of being prime means being unable to be divided by any > integer except for itself and 1, > > >*OK.* > > >> and if the amount of computation possible in the expanding > accelerating universe is finite then beyond a finite point

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 2 Sep 2019, at 22:31, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/2/2019 8:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Indeed that can be said illustrated from the fact that in string theory, to >> get the mass of the photon right, we use 1+2+3+4+5+… = -1/12, which is a >> statement

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:52:58 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 2 Sep 2019, at 21:48, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 10:57:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 1 Sep 2019, at 17:58, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> I'm saying there is no

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 2 Sep 2019, at 21:14, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> Yes Euclid said nothing about physics in his proof, but he should have. A > >> proof is only as good as the assumptions it starts out with and Euclid > >>

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 2 Sep 2019, at 21:48, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 10:57:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 1 Sep 2019, at 17:58, John Clark > wrote: >> >> >> I'm saying there is no such thing as numbers > > > Explain this to my tax inspector! > > > Bruno >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 7:00 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> Moving a point? If a physical particle moves from x to y then there is > no longer a particle at x but now there is one at y where there was none > before. > > > *You are assuming past points in time cease to exist.* > I don't know what

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 5:19 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:42 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > >> *> Is a point moving up in down forever in some time dimension different >> from the sin function sin(t), for all t? * >> > > Moving a point? If a physical particle moves from x to y then

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:42 PM Jason Resch wrote: > *> Is a point moving up in down forever in some time dimension different > from the sin function sin(t), for all t? * > Moving a point? If a physical particle moves from x to y then there is no longer a particle at x but now there is one at y

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:15 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> > And natural numbers are not machinery and no other sort of number is > either. Machinery needs change and change needs matter. > > You never answered the question I posed regarding

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 9/2/2019 8:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed that can be said illustrated from the fact that in string theory, to get the mass of the photon right, we use 1+2+3+4+5+… = -1/12, which is a statement about the prime numbers, just a little bit disguised I'm sure you know that equation

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 10:57:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 1 Sep 2019, at 17:58, John Clark > > wrote: > > > I'm saying there is no such thing as numbers > > > > Explain this to my tax inspector! > > > Bruno > > > But there would be no tax collectors if such people had not

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Yes Euclid said nothing about physics in his proof, but he should have. > A proof is only as good as the assumptions it starts out with and Euclid > assumed physics could be ignored. > > *> That he is not assuming your materialist religion

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 1 Sep 2019, at 17:58, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 8:41 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > so we agree that Euclid didn’t mention physics, nor any physical > > assumption, in his proof on the prime numbers. > > Yes Euclid said nothing about

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 8:41 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *so we agree that Euclid didn’t mention physics, nor any physical > assumption, in his proof on the prime numbers.* > Yes Euclid said nothing about physics in his proof, but he should have. A proof is only as good as the assumptions it

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 30 Aug 2019, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> Euclid proved that IF numbers have nothing to do with physics then there > >> are infinitely many primes. But that's a big if. > > That is false. Or

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:26 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Euclid proved that *IF* numbers have nothing to do with physics then > there are infinitely many primes. But that's a big if. > > *That is false. Or give the reference.* > I need to provide a reference for you to believe Euclid didn't

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 29 Aug 2019, at 21:10, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:28:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Ito be honest, I have no clue what you mean by “natural number do not exist”. > I can understand that they don’t exist physically, but with Mechanism, we >

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 29 Aug 2019, at 18:17, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:45 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > When we prove that there is no biggest prime number, we don’t make the > > prime numbers being infinite. There was no biggest prime number "well > >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:28:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Ito be honest, I have no clue what you mean by “natural number do not > exist”. I can understand that they don’t exist physically, but with > Mechanism, we know that “physical existence” is not a criterium for being

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 28 Aug 2019, at 21:38, John Clark wrote: > > > How much? > > 42 That is absolutely wrong! Everyone knows that 42 is fiction. (Douglas Adams, Lewis Carroll, etc.) The correct answer is 24 (Ramanujan, Hardy, ..) The real debate is between 3 x 8 or 4 x 6. Now you know the difference

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 28 Aug 2019, at 19:15, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 11:36 AM John Clark > wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:45 PM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > You can write a program that outputs the string "2 + 2 = 5", but

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 28 Aug 2019, at 20:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/28/2019 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> How much? If you ask to much on matter for its role in preserving your >> consciousness, it will be no more Turing emulable. >> >> If it remains Turing emulable,

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:45 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *When we prove that there is no biggest prime number, we don’t make the > prime numbers being infinite. There was no biggest prime number "well > before” Euclid proved it. * > Euclid proved that *IF* numbers have nothing to do with

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 28 Aug 2019, at 21:38, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:46 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> There are 2 attributes that matter has that numbers don't, and I've said > >> this over and over, the ability to change, and the ability to interact

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 28 Aug 2019, at 21:21, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:15 PM Jason Resch > wrote: > > >> And both the Axiom Of Choice and the Continuum Axiom involve infinity and > >> physics has no use for infinity so physics doesn't care if those axioms >

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 28 Aug 2019, at 20:20, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:46:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 27 Aug 2019, at 13:31, John Clark > >> wrote: >> > >> yet again to who knows what because I still say "yes" to the digital doctor. >> That's why I

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:46 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> There are 2 attributes that matter has that numbers don't, and I've said > this over and over, the ability to change, and the ability to interact with > time in such a way that cause always precedes effect. And both of these > attributes

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:15 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> And both the Axiom Of Choice and the Continuum Axiom involve infinity > and physics has no use for infinity so physics doesn't care if those axioms > are true or not, so there is no way to independently determine their truth, > so stuff based

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:46:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Aug 2019, at 13:31, John Clark > > wrote: > > > yet again to who knows what because I still say "yes" to the digital > doctor. That's why I never bothered to learn Brunospeak, > > > > That is a trolling

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/28/2019 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How much? If you ask to much on matter for its role in preserving your consciousness, it will be no more Turing emulable. If it remains Turing emulable, then it is already emulated in the a tiny part of the arithmetical reality. But in other

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 11:36 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:45 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> You can write a program that outputs the string "2 + 2 = 5", but you'll >> never find a program that outputs a proof of 2 + 2 = 5 in any consistent >> and sound system of axioms.* >> > >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:45 PM Jason Resch wrote: *> You can write a program that outputs the string "2 + 2 = 5", but you'll > never find a program that outputs a proof of 2 + 2 = 5 in any consistent > and sound system of axioms.* > Even if your system is consistent there is no way you can

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 27 Aug 2019, at 19:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/27/2019 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 26 Aug 2019, at 21:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/26/2019 4:19 AM,

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 27 Aug 2019, at 13:31, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:37 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > if you think that there is a difference, what is it? It seems that you > > will have to invoke some attribute of your “matter” > > There are 2

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/27/2019 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Minsky:  No I'd say to say that this button is real is to say it's in this universe that we're in *to say that the universe is real makes no sense at all it's just possible*. (Emphasis mine) However trivial the word existence was to

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:37 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:48 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> But he wasn't smart enough to immediately reject the notion of >> computation without physical execution on a computer.* >> > > Probably because Marvin Minsky didn't think he was

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:48 PM Jason Resch wrote: *> But he wasn't smart enough to immediately reject the notion of > computation without physical execution on a computer.* > Probably because Marvin Minsky didn't think he was talking to somebody like Bruno or you and some things in a

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/27/2019 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Aug 2019, at 21:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 8/26/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Aug 2019, at 02:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:25 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *>>> A computer is a universal number.* > >> I agree because my personal idiosyncratic definition of "universal > number" is a chip of Silicon made by the Intel corporation, and that is > ever bit as valid as your personal idiosyncratic

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:04 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > > *You sound just like Minsky here* ( https://www.youtube.com/ >> watch?v=hVJwzVD3jEs ) *debating possible things vs. real things.* >> > > Marvin Minsky was certainly a very smart fellow,

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:04 PM Jason Resch wrote: > *You sound just like Minsky here* ( > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJwzVD3jEs ) *debating possible things > vs. real things.* > Marvin Minsky was certainly a very smart fellow, Isaac Asimov once said that in his entire life he only met 2

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> If every possible mathematical structure exists, then "exists" is > meaningless when applied to mathematical structures.* Yes! Meaning needs contrast, "everything has the X property" is equivalent to

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 27 Aug 2019, at 05:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/26/2019 7:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:33 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On 8/26/2019 6:13 PM,

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:37 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > * if you think that there is a difference, what is it? It seems that > you will have to invoke some attribute of your “matter”* > There are 2 attributes that matter has that numbers don't, and I've said this over and over, the ability to

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 26 Aug 2019, at 23:08, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/26/2019 5:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> One not necessary, >> >> If every possible mathematical structure exists, then everything (including >> what you might call accidents) is necessary. > > If every

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 26 Aug 2019, at 22:37, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:27 PM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > But if the laws of physics are deterministic, > > They're not. Are you alluding to the wave collapse? Without wave collapse, physics is purely

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 26 Aug 2019, at 21:08, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:31 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > A computer is a universal number. > > I agree because my personal idiosyncratic definition of "universal number" is > a chip of Silicon made by the

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 26 Aug 2019, at 21:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/26/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 26 Aug 2019, at 02:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/25/2019 12:50 PM,

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/26/2019 7:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:33 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 8/26/2019 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: What does "distinct" mean in that?  It's a

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:33 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/26/2019 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > What does "distinct" mean in that? It's a distinction you make because > you can think of a brain and processes of the brain as

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/26/2019 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: What does "distinct" mean in that?  It's a distinction you make because you can think of a brain and processes of the brain as separate. Just like you can think of an

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:12 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/26/2019 5:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/26/2019 5:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > One not necessary, >> > > If every possible mathematical structure exists, then everything > (including what you might call accidents)

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:38 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:27 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> But if the laws of physics are deterministic,* >> > > They're not. > > John K Clark > > > Which one's aren't? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/26/2019 5:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 8/25/2019 6:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/26/2019 5:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote: It is generally impossible to differentiate a random sequence from one produced by an algorithm.  What you may take as evidence of randomness could instead be the output of a complex deterministic algorithm. If QM required collapse, or if the

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/26/2019 5:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote: One not necessary, If every possible mathematical structure exists, then everything (including what you might call accidents) is necessary. If every possible mathematical structure exists, then "exists" is meaningless when applied to

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:27 PM Jason Resch wrote: *> But if the laws of physics are deterministic,* > They're not. 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

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:40 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:06 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > >> Add 2 +2 on your computer. Observe the output. Hit your computer as >>> hard as you can with the hammer. Add 2 +2 on your computer again. Observe >>> if the output has changed. Note

  1   2   3   4   5   >