On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > > A model is the math version of a reality. > A model could be accurate or inaccurate. > > > A theory > A theory c ould also be accurate or inaccurate. > is a finite object A theory is a "finite object" but a model is not? > > Note that this is false for some higher order logic. > If true, if logic can sometimes say something is false and sometimes say the same thing is true (that's true or false not proven or unproven, and there is a difference) if sometimes logic say yes that bridge will carry your weight if you cross it and sometimes logic says no it won't carry your weight then physics is the final arbiter about what will happen when you cross it. If what you say is true true then physics doesn't care what logic or mathematics say, you've just got to cross the bridge and see what physics decides to do. > >> >> So what is the correct purely mathematical theory that would avoid the >> paradoxes I described? After 2 minutes is that Zeno lamp on or off? How >> many balls are in that box, a infinite number or zero? According to you the >> fact that nobody can physically make such a lamp or box makes >> no difference, so there is an answer, so let's have it! > > > > > You need to make it mathematically clear before. > Thomson's lamp problem is perfectly clear, but mathematics can not provide a clear answer. > >>> >> >>> Mathematics is not a language. >> >> >> >> >> Most mathematicians would disagree. > > > > ? > > Most mathematician agree with that idea, > I Googled "Mathematics is a language" and got many thousands of hits, the oldest quote I could find came from Galileo who said 1623 "** *the universe is written in the language of mathematics*" . > > > especially after Gödel proved his incompleteness theorem, > Godel always believed in Platonism, he thought things like Goldbach's conjecture were either true or they were not and I do too, but Godel prove that the language of mathematics will not always be able to say if things like Goldbach's conjecture are true or not. > > > > Read hardy "a mathematician's apology". > I did, I read it when I was a kid. >> >> You still need energy, you can make the amount >> >> of energy >> >> arbitrary small >> >> with a reversible computer if you can also keep the computer arbitrarily >> well isolated from unwanted interactions >> >> , >> >> but the less energy you use the slower the calculation and if you use >> zero energy the calculation >> >> will >> >> grind to a halt. >> >> And besides energy you certainly need matter to perform calculations. >> > > > > I need energy to impolement the computation, but the computation itself > will not need energy. Of course, I will need energy for the read and write, > and any use of the computation. > Energy is needed to implement a calculation but calculations need no energy? That makes no sense. > > > > The need of energy in our physical implementation of computer > Or to say the same thing with different words, information is physical. > > > is thus not relevant, > Only if the physical world isn't relevant, and that's the road to madness. > > If everett is false, and if QM is correct, information and mind have to be > physical > And if Everett is correct and QM is correct then information and mind have to be physical too. > > > to reduce > > the wave packet at a distance, and many magic thing like that. Of course, > that is the main reason to believe in Everett, No it is not, and that's the only reason I'm a Everett fan! Unlike most other quantum interpretations Everett has no need to explain how the mind works or say what consciousness or a observation is because those things have nothing to do with it. Everett says a conscious observer obeys the same laws of physics as a rock, if there is a change the universe splits and if there isn't it doesn't. > >> >> >> Screw peepee screw baby talk. > > > > > Well, this is not convincing, > Neither is your peepee baby talk. >> >> >> There are a infinite number of axioms that mathematicians could have >> started out with, why did they pick the particular ones that they did? > > > > > It depends on the application, > If the application is to figure out if that bridge will carry your weight if you cross it then you had better pick the axioms in number theory such that they allow you to correctly count out the number of pounds things weigh. > > > or, in pure mathematics, from their taste. The mathematical reality is > ample. it contains many structures obeying to different theories. > That's true, a language can do a amazing variety of things, the English language for example can be used to write a treatises on bridge building and that same language can also be used to write a Harry Potter novel. >> In every case physics leads and mathematics follows. > > > > > If that is true, computationalism is false. > *Bullshit. * > > > You present physicalism like if it was metaphysically proved. Obviopusly, > that is not the case, and there are no evidences at all for it, only > evidences of the contrary, unless you eliminate consciousness, > > person, etc. > If my physical brain changes my consciousness changes. If my consciousness changes my physical brain changes. What more evidence in favor of physicalism do you need? What more evidence could there even be? 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.
