On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> I saw several question marks in the last post but I saw no questions. >> Ask me any question and I'll give you an answer or say I don't know, but I >> can't respond to gibberish. > > > > > I was alluding on how you predict your subjective experience when you do > an experience in physics > That is true but only part of the truth, Bruno Marchal was alluding on how *you* predict *your *subjective experience when *you* do an experience in physics where *"you"* has been duplicated and thus making that personal pronoun ambiguous. > > > you said that you were open to the idea that mathematics could be more > fundamental than physics. > I can't prove mathematics is more fundamental than physics and I can't prove it isn't, and as of September 30 2015 nobody else has been able to do any better. When I don't know I'm not afraid to say I don't know. > > > This contradict your use of primitive "hardware" to pretend that a > computation needs to be run physically to exist. > No it does not. What I said was that up to now nobody has ever made one single calculation without the use of physical hardware and that statement is 100% correct. There is some evidence that physics is more fundamental but it falls far short of a proof. It could still go either way. > > > This is even more astonishing, given that everybody in the filed knows that > [...] > > And it is even more astonishing given that here is zero evidence that anybody in any field would know anything at all without physical hardware. > [...] > computations and computability are provably arithmetical notion > And up to now nobody has been able to perform one single arithmetical operation without the use of physical hardware. And up to now nobody has ever had a "notion" without physical hardware either. > > > If you have heard of some scientist having both read the work, and > disagree with it, just give me a name, as I have never encouter one. > If they are so common then please answer just one question, why hasn't at least one of those numerous scientists started their own computer hardware company with zero manufacturing costs and become a trillionaire? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd really like an answer. > >> >> Convince the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society that you're >> not talking nonsense and have them make you a member; and then convince the >> International Congress of Mathematicians and have them award you the Fields >> Metal and announce it all here. > > > > You are basically making an argument by authority here, And your multiple statements that I have not convinced anybody else on this list is not an argument from authority?? If you're going to make an argument from authority it's best to have a good authority, and I think the average member of the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society has a higher scientific reputation than the average member of this list. 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.
