On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, >> cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. >> Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I >> can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than >> 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist. > > > > > Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference > rules. > But inference requires reason, and reason requires a brain, and all known brains require matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution > because it contradicts the bible. > I think you first used that exact same insult in 2007 or 2008, can't you think of a new one. >> >> >> without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have >> a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything. > > > > > Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still > computations which emulates your mind states. > How on Earth does that imply computationalism is false?? I said computations need matter, matter exists, so computations exist, and computationalism says intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's brain, and brains are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that > numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute. Addition and multiplication are computations, so you're saying computations compute. Well I can't argue with that. >> >> maybe "God" means >> a >> n invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob >> in that language >> , >> >> but that's not what the >> what those words mean to me or to the English language. >> > > God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the > appearances. > So the answer to EVERY question of the form "why does X look like that?" is God, and that makes the word "God" totally and completely useless? > > In math we always extend the meaning of the terms. > In mathematics you create a name "prime numbers" for example and then define the concept by giving it certain specific properties; you don't create a the name and then start endless philosophical discussions of if "prime numbers" are dividable by 3. And you don't invent the work "klogknee" and then try to figure out what the word means, > > > Playing vocabulary games does not help. > You're accusing me of playing vocabulary games ?! You say God exists, but then you say God doesn't need to be a person, God doesn't need to smarter than a human, God doesn't need to be intelligent at all, nor does God need to be conscious. But nevertheless you insist God exists. And you accuse me of playing vocabulary games ! >> >> I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they have the >> ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. > > > > > That has been refuted. > In your dreams perhaps. A definition can conjure itself into existence but nothing else, to claim otherwise is not just wrong it's silly. >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >> > >> But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you have >> change your mind since our last conversation. >> > No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more than 3 physical things in existence, in fact there are even more than 6. > > >> The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of humans >> or aliens to get this. >> > In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical things in the cosmos, there are even more than 6. >> >>> Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2 >>> was true or not. >> >> >> > >> It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say >> that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory >> inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you know >> Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would changes things. >> > If I remember correctly Bertrand Russell started with the axiom "one is zero" and was able to logically deduce "I am the Pope" ; but if there was not even one thing in the universe then there would be no "I" no "Pope" and no "am", so it would make no difference to anything if I am the Pope or not. 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. > >> >> > >> That would make physics circular. >> > And in mathematics every correct equation is a tautology. > > I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a primary > physical reality. > Interesting question. You can ask something involving matter that obeys the laws of physics, something like me, interesting questions, but you can't ask the number 6 anything. > > > >> Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction. >> > > Both are almost identical and neither can be derived from deduction and > so must be assumed as axioms. The only difference is mathematical > induction claims that under conditions X things *always* continue but when > used in the physical world inductive inference > claims that under condition X things *usually* continue. As far as > intelligent behavior is concerned nothing is more fundamental than > induction. > > > >> > >> But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the observer >> interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also in mathematical >> induction, >> > > I have no idea what that means. > > > > > like Peano Arithmetic. Peano arithmetic has induction as an axiom but Robinson arithmetic doesn't, so Robinson is weaker and even further from the real physical world than Peano. > It is not a question of language anyway. Of course it's a question of language!! "God" is a word, a word that you love more than its meaning. If "God" means " *The 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*." then God does not exist. If "God" means " *an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob* **" then it makes absolutely no difference if God exists or not. The thing that makes the God theory different from every other theory of the world is that intentional is at the very heart of it, if you take that away all that remains is a word that means mindless mush. > > > >>> You will find many other definition, and I use the one by the >>> neoplatonists, whioch is the most general. But I avoid the term god, unless >>> I reply to a post with that term. >> >> > A more general definition is not always or even usually better. "Stuff" > is more general than "number" and "number" is more general than "prime > number". "Fuzzy blob" is pretty general, and pretty useless. > > > > >>> Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics >> >> >> > >> Why? >> > > There is only one reason I can think of, physics must have something > mathematics does't. > > > > >> > >> Well, that is possible, but then you will not survive with an artificial >> brain. That's the point. >> > > I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion. Not a clue. > > > > >> >>> >> >>> 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! >> >> >> > >> You confess base your thinking on what the majority says, >> > > You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When it > comes to the definition of words the majority rules. > > > > >> > >> but science does not work that way. >> > > True, but language does work that way. What's the point of knowing a > language spoken only by you? > > It doesn't matter to Science or to logic what the meaning of a word is, > all they ask is that the meaning be consistent. > It's not up to science to give meanings to words, it's up to people. > > > > 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.
