On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> >> Bruno Marcha >> l >> 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. > > > > > I have repeated many times that the question is always asked before the > duplication. > And the question is about what one and only one thing will happen to YOU after YOU has been duplicated and becomes TWO. In other words the question was about gibberish. 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. > > > > > If my body is a machine, then there is not much choice in the matter. > If we're dealing in philosophy and not everyday conversation and it my body is a machine then I don't know what "choice" means. And if my body is not a machine I still don't know what "choice" means. > > > You beg the question with respect to step 3. > There may be a question mark but there is no question. And I have no answer because gibberish has no answer. > >> >> When I don't know I'm not afraid to say I don't know. > > > > Then you contraidct yourself. By the way, your argument that there is no > computation in arithmetic is isomorph to the argument that a simulated > typhon cannot make someone wet, which I know you don't believe in. > A computer can make a simulated hurricane but because it uses only numbers to build the storm and numbers (probably) have no physical properties the simulated hurricane would always lack something the real hurricane had, the physical ability to get the computer wet. However if it turned out that you're right and math is more fundamental than physics and numbers have everything physics has and more then a clever enough programmer *could *write a program that would cause the computer to actually get wet. I'm very skeptical that such a program is possible but I can't prove it's impossible so maybe you're right. >> >> 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 > > > > > How do you know that? > > Because every time a calculation is made something physical in a computer changes and if I change something physical in a computer the calculation changes. > > > > How do you know that there is physical hardware? > Because I can touch the hardware with my physical hand. > > > If you don't know if math is or not the fundamental science, > Observations can be made regardless of it math or physics is the fundamental science. > > But we know as a fact that elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic) > contains all terminating computations, and all pieces on the non > terminating computations. > Then computer chips would be unnecessary and Raphael M Robinson should be the principle stockholder of the Robinson computer corporation and be a trillionare , but I don't believe that is the case. A physical brain or a physical computer can perform calculations that produce Robinson arithmetic , it can describe how a calculation was done , but Robinson arithmetic can't actuality calculate a damn thing. . > >> >> 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. >> > > > > For the same reason that nobody would drink simulated water, unless they > are simulated themselves. > That is a very bad analogy because there is such a thing as simulated water but there is no such thing as simulated arithmetic; simulated water is different from physical water but arithmetic is always just arithmetic. I think we would both agree that when a simulated computer calculates 2+2 the 4 it produces is exactly the same as the 4 a non- si mulated computer would make when doing the same calculation, and the same would be true if the simulated computer itself simulate d a computer. But we also agree that simulated water would not quench your thirst the way that physical water would, so if physical water has attributes that numbers can not produce , so you tell me if physics or mathematics is the more fundamental. > >> >> >> >> 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?? > > > > No, it is not. It is a simple observation that anybody can verify. > And it is a simple observation that anybody can verify that you have been unable to convince the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society or me. 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.
