On 30 Apr 2015, at 03:00, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> What a shame companies like INTEL IBM and Apple have wasted
trillions of dollars in building hardware when if they had just
asked any undergraduate student they could have told them how to
make a computer without using any matter or energy or momentum or
spin or electrical charge or anything else that is physical. Bruno
you really need to start your own company, you'll be able to sell
Bruno brand computers far cheaper than your competition that still
makes them out of old fashioned matter and still make a big profit.
Unlike those other companies you don't have to build your computers
in China, in fact you don't have to build them at all, so your
manufacturing costs would be zero! And think of the convenience of a
smartphone that isn't just thin but takes up no space at all in your
pocket. I predict that just 6 months after your new company's IPO
you'll be the world's first trillionaire.
> You need the physical to implement the computer in the physical
reality.
If additional steps, steps that you has conspicuously not specified,
You told us that you stop at step 2. The steps that you need are just
steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
are required to turn mathematical truth into physical truth
This is vague, and literally impossible. We don't turn mathematical
truth into physical truth. We explain the appearance of physical truth
by the first person invariance for "digital replacement" in the
arithmetical structure.
then clearly physical reality is more than mathematical reality,
It is explained why arithmetic seen from inside (by the creatures
emulated by the sigma_1 sentences) is bigger than arithmetic. In the
long version in french, I explain more on this by using model theory
and the Skolem "paradox"/phenomenon.
it has everything mathematical reality has plus something extra.
It is an internal aspect of mathematics, well, of arithmetic.
UDA explains that the difference of physics and math is a matter of
"pronouns" or "first/third person points of view", and the many
different possible use of pronouns (first person, first person plural,
third person, etc.) is explained by the difference of logics between
p, []p, []p & p, []p & <>t, []p & <>t & p, with p sigma_1. UDA
explains why, and AUDA (Arithmetical translation of UDA) explains that
incompleteness justifies entirely the nuances between those views,
once we use the standard definitions---already brought by the (greek)
philosophers.
Some ancient and modern argument against such definition are refuted
by incompleteness (cf what I said about Gerson, if you have read those
posts). It is incompleteness which makes the logic of []p quite
different from the logic of []p & p, for example. We don't have for
all p []p -> p in the logic G1 ([]p), and but we have it for the logic
of []p & p (S4Grz1).
Bruno
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 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.
