On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > >> >> I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of physics is able >> to perform calculations, >> >> I need only observe that is can. > > > > > No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal. >
True I can't observe that because I don't know what " pieces of matter are Universal " means and I doubt you do either, but I know what pieces of matter performing calculations means and I can observe that. > > > In all case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is enough for that > task. > What in the world is "g randmother physics " ? > >> > >> you need to explain why >> p >> ure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing without the help of physics. > > > > T > his is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when I explain this > in all details in a self-contained way > . > And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with no clear referent; and this is supposed to be a work that proves something about personal identity. > > > all you need to understand is the original definition of computable > function, > I don't give a damn about your definitions or computable functions. Enough talk lets see some action, I want you to do something, I want you to make a calculation without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Ask one of your infinite universal numbers to find out what the 11th prime number larger than 10^100^100 is and tell us what it says in your next post. Do that and you've won the argument, but no fair cheating by using one of INTEL's products or anything else made of matter. > > > as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do not belong to > the type of things which compute. Only universal numbers do that, > Stop telling me that and SHOW ME! You claim to know all about these " universal numbers " of yours so use them to make some calculations and put INTEL out of business. > > I have no clue if you are just joking > I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no need for a company like INTEL. >> Then we agree, if the word "God" >> >> is redefined to mean >> >> a >> >> invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob >> >> then "God" exists >> , >> > It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is invisible > in most theologies, OK. > Don't you find that rather convenient? You'd think God should be the most obvious thing there is but instead the one thing theologians agree in is God is invisible. > > it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth of all > arithmetical sentence, > And what percentage of human beings on this planet believe the word "God" means "arithmetic? I would estimate about .000001%. I agree that majority vote can't determine the nature of reality, but they can and do determine the meanings of words. And there are only 2 reasons somebody would use the English word "God" in such a grossly non-standard way: 1) They like to make a noise with their mouth that sounds like "I believe in God". 2)They wish to deceive. > > > "amoral"? open problem. > > > > "Mindless?" Perhaps? > > > but no need to take this as more than a simple metaphor. > Just as I thought, to you and only to you the English word "God" means an invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic. Bruno, do you really thing hanging the name tag "God" on such an amorphous blob helps communicating in your ideas to other people without creating massive confusion? > > > That is implicit in Platonist like theology, > Plato was a imbecile and theology has no field of study. > > Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One instead. > The one what? > > > And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and physics came > in great part from Plato and Aristotle. > All we hear from you is Plato and Aristotle , but you never mention the greatest Greek of them all, Archimedes . > > > You say theology is stupid, > T heology is stupid and so are theologians. > > > but you mock all attempts to be serious with it, > Because there is no "it" there to be serious about. With theology there is no there there. 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.
