On 30 Jun 2016, at 20:08, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> A universal Turing machine can compute all Turing computable
functions. And also all Lambda computable function, and actually,
An abstract universal Turing machine can compute
exactly diddly squat. A physical universal Turing machine on
the other hand can compute anything capable of being
computed.
In your theory. No problem, but it is incompatible with
computationalism.
Other add that the machine needs to be baptize for doing that, and it
is not logically more invalid than your move.
> Once you accept Yes-doctor,
But I don't accept it unless the Turing Machine simulating me
is PHYSICAL.
the whole point is that is enough for getting the non physical
immaterialist consequences.
> If computationalism is true, there is no way for us to
distinguish *introspectively* which universal computations supports
us,
So what? We are not limited to introspection, we canobserve the
outside world and even perform experiments on it and we can easily
see that computations are ALWAYS physical, and we can see that
the physical brain makes calculations and these calculations are
what makes us who we are; change the physical stuff in the brain and
the computations change, change the computations and your conscious
experience changes.
> human physicalness is an indexical.
Human physicalness is an indexical what?
>>Perhaps your "big picture" is just a bit too big. If the
fundamental meaning of the word "nothing" is infinite unbounded
homogeneity in every dimension, and I can't think of a better one
that conforms with our normal use of the word, then your "big
picture" is nothing.
> You seem to be negative for the purpose of being negative.
No, I'm being negative for a good cause. One should be negative
against illogical ill formed metaphysical ideas masquerading as
mathematics.
>> John Clark is not stuck at step 3, Bruno Marchal
is. Bruno Marchal assumes the very thing Bruno Marchal is
trying to prove, Bruno assumes that because when looking
into the past there is always a unique meaning to the word
"you" there will be a unique meaning to that personal
pronoun when looking into the future too;
> Not at all. Quite the contrary. All what is used is the talk
of each duplicated people.
If the person is duplicated then the question "what will YOU see
next?"
is not well formed and it is equivalent to "what will flobkneequicks
see next?"; neither question has an answer.
All your copies disagree.
IIf it was ill-formed, then the question what spin will you get would
be ill-formed too in QM, and in physics in general.
Your argument that the difference is that the doppelgangers can meet
has been answered by many people, so try another one.
The question "what will John Clark see next?" has an answer but
Bruno absolutely insists on using the personal pronoun, hasn't
anyone wondered why Bruno is so adamant about doing so? It's because
personal pronouns are a convenient place to hide the gaping holes in
Bruno's argument.
I gave you version without pronoun, and then showed that it was easy
to provide a simple semantics for the pronouns. Then the math part
define all the pronouns with the second recursion theorem of Kleene,
and its intensional variants.
> You are the one using bad religion to invalidate a
demonstration,
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
You illustrate very well that people who call themselves non-
religious are more dogmatic on their beliefs than religious educated
people who are aware of their historical dogma, and try to not invoke
them in all reasoning.
At least you try, thanls for that, as it is infinitely more respectful
than any other opponents I have heard about, which either do not try,
or eventually got the point after some finite conversation with me or
some colleagues.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
