On 02 Apr 2015, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2015, at 03:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The digital simulation of brain functions is achieved on a
physical computer after all, which is a physical object itself --
simulating (primitive) physical processes.
Assuming a physical object, which I do not (nor do I assume they
don't exist). Comp, the hypothesis is nutral on what exist, except
for what is needed to have a UTM, so it assumes one UTM, if you
want, but not necessarily a physical UTM.
You said somewhere that a computation is dynamical, not static,
Yes. That is important. But the notion of time needed is only some
morphism in N. Compuational steps, which can be define in arithmetic
in the relative way. (This has been done with the first intensional
variant of provability by Rosser).
which is why you rejected the notion that Champernow's number
contains all possible computations and hence is a dovetailer:
"(0,1234567891011 ..) does not emulate anything, despite describing
(in some ways) all computations."
It describes the computations, but does not emulate them, contrary to
arithmetic. That diophantine polynomial describes all computations is
very easy to prove. That they emulate all UTMs took 50 years of hard
work, and was thought y many being obviously impossible.
Emulation is a dynamical process in time. I wonder where you get a
time variable for your UTM.
By a variable on the computational steps. It has nothing to do with a
physical time a priori.
All that you say about the UTM and the dovetailer appears to assume
an instantiation in some temporal structure.
Not at all.
I do not see time as a parameter in arithmetic! In other words, your
dovetailer has to be running on a physical UTM.
Nope.
You claim above that it does not have to be physical. I would like
you to point me to a non-physical Turing machine that actually runs
programs. I.e., not just a description of a Turing machine.
You need to understand the difference between syntax and semantic in
arithmetic. I will come back on this later. It is not easy to explain
as people already confuse easily the number 0 and the symbol 0.
I have downloaded your SANE04 paper and will work through it in time.
OK. That is rather wise if you want criticize it.
A first glance suggests that I will have objections at very many
points.
I wold be very happy to hear them.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
