On 04 Nov 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> If sentence X says "2+2=5" then sentence X expresses a
numerical relationship, that association may or may not belong to
the category "true" but it's certainly a relationship. The problem
isn't that true mathematical relationships don't exist it's that
false ones do too,
> In physics and the everyday life too, but why should we take
into account false proposition into account?
But it's not false! It's true to say that "2+2" and "=5" are
in a relationship, they are both in a sentence that says "2+2 =5".
Then "2+2=5" has nothing to do with what I am talking about, and in
your sense it is just another arithmetical truth using bad notation.
But, OK, if it is true, then my point remains correct. You should just
use less confusing notation.
But if you want to determine if what that sentence says is true or
not, then you will need to make a calculation, and that can only be
done with matter that obeys the laws of physics.
Not at all. If it is true, it is true independently of me verify it or
not. That is why I can say that I am sure that Goldbach conjecture is
true or not, that Riemann hypothesis is true or not. I accept the
excluded middle principle for the arithmetical proposition. [](A v B)
just doesn't imply that []A or []B is true, but that A is true or B is
true.
>> and the only way anybody has ever been able to separate true
statements from false statements is by using matter that obeys the
laws of physics.
> The whole point of realism is that the truth is independent
of the fact that we verify them.
But without access to matter that obeys the laws of physics truth
alone can't DO anything.
Why? I think that this comes from your assumption, but that is refuted
with Mechanism.
The relationship that a truth has with another truth, or even with a
untruth, never changes, it's completely static. And consciousness
is not static and neither is intelligence.
I never herad you defending the idea that time is primitive? You are
arguing aganist any notion of block universe, like Prigogine, and
Stephen Paul King.
No (logical) problem, but it can't work with the computationalist
assumption.
> If not, you could say anything, both in physics and in
arithmetic.
It would be trivially easy to write a program that would generate
all correct textbooks in mathematics and physics of 1000 pages or
less, but it would be ASTRONOMICALLY more difficult to generate
*only* correct textbooks in mathematics and physics of 1000 pages or
less; and it could not even be attempted without matter that obeys
the laws of physics.
You confuse babel library with the universal dovetailer, which write
only correct programs, and correctly emulate them.
Then the laws of physics appears as stable appearances on the "border"
of the universal mind attached to the universal person defined by the
universal machine.
>> And that is my explanation for why INTEL makes
microprocessors out of silicon and not out of definitions and
theorems;
> INTEL use silicon because he wants that the object or people
supported by its computation can manifest itself relatively to our
most probable computations in arithmetic.
If mathematics is more fundamental than physics then you have no
explanation why all numerical relationships can not manifest
themselves directly to people without the need of silicon as a
middleman.
No, it is false. I do have the explanation, but you need to stop
denying your understanding of step 3, to begin with.
But if physics is more fundamental than mathematics then it's easy
for me to explain why silicon is needed.
Only by adding actual infinities in the mind and matter, and an ad hoc
dualist link between.
> Comp predicted [...]
I'm not interested in what "comp" predicted.
Comp is mechanism, and you are the most interested one on this as you
are the comp-practionner of the group here.
You just deny that comp -> step 3, but nobody understand your way of
reasoning on this, as we toild you before.
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.
