On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> A definition can't make something exist! > > > > > Wrong. > Are you being serious? > > > Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes > the glodlyrapiculs existing And I define a glodlyrapicul by a dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence? This conversation is descending from science to mathematics to philosophy to slapstick. > > I cannot explain you the number without using our physical environment, > but that does not mean that the notion of number depends on the existence > of that physical environment. Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion of notion can exist without the physical environment! > > >>> >> >>> >>> and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic. >> >> > >> >> >> And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books, > > > > > Now in the sense of computer science, which is relevant here. > Why Not? They seem equally relevant to me. Both books are made of atoms that obey the laws of physics, and neither of those arrangements of atoms are organized is a way that enables them to perform calculations. > >> >> but none of them can burn my finger >> . >> > > > > If you are emulated at the right level in a finger burning situation, you > will feel the pain, > I agree, maybe we're all living in a computer simulation but if we are it's a *computer* simulation, and computers are made of matter. > >> >> You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call >> "computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it. > > > > > Many people are interested. It is a branch of math, and it makes us able > to show that some problem are not algorithmically solvable. > Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be solved without brains, but it was needed to discover some problems can't be solved even with brains. >> >> If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device >> you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set. > > > > > How could that be possible? We interrogate the machine *in* arithmetic. > You interrogate the machine "in" physics because it's made of physical stuff. > > > You are telling me that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do the physical > computation, > I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there would be no one to give it a meaning. Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2 was true or not. > > > even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a justification in > physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist, > Yes it does. It was discovered empirically that three apples and three apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two apples, and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any. > >> >> >> Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek >> does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called >> "fiction". > > > > > Except that star strek is fiction. > It's fiction because faster than light spaceships doesn't correspond with physical reality. > > > Arithmetical truth > [...] > But Arithmetic does correspond with physical reality and that's why it's nonfiction written in the language of mathematics. >> >> >> Nothing can be explained without matter and the laws of physics because >> there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the >> understanding. > > > > > How do you know? > From Induction, something even more important than deduction and something Robinson arithmetic doesn't have. There are countless examples of matter explaining things and countless examples of matter understanding things, but there are no examples and no evidence of anything else doing either. > > > > then in your theory computationalism is false. > Maybe in Bruno-speak, but you are the only speaker of that language. Everybody else means something different by words like "God" or " computationalism". I just typed Computationalism into Google and this is what I got: "** *Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's cognitive system (or brain)."* That definition works for me. I also asked Google to define "God": *"T* *he creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes."* And that definition works for me too. > > > No theories in math assumes anything in physics. > Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics and physics can't do so either, but they don't need to because they can observe them. > > Who care? >>> >>> >>> 1.2 Billion Catholics care and the >>> y >>> care very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something* >>> RADICALLY* different from what you mean when you use the >>> same >>> word >>> , >>> >>> and that makes >>> >>> communication almost impossible >>> >>> , and yet you insist on using that >>> same damn >>> word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled. >> >> > > > > Right answer, the catholics care. So you are catholic? > > or you care, for some reason to what the catholic thinks. > Of course I care what Catholics think, they outnumber me 1.2 billion to one and they have been using the word "God" in a certain way for 2000 years so I'd say they have ownership of it, and it would be foolish and cause endless confusion if I started calling something completely unrelated, like my can opener, "God". The Catholic God, Bruno's God, and my can opener, are all equally distant from each other in concept space, so they should't have the same name! > > > the modern catholic have no problem writing paper on the god of Plato, > To hell with modern Catholics to hell with God to hell with Plato to hell with Aristotle and above all to hell with all the idiot ancient Greeks that were so ignorant they didn't even know where the sun went at night. 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.
