On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> A model could be accurate or inaccurate. > > > > > This makes no sense with the technical sense of model by the logician. > If logicians can make no sense out of the words " accurate " or " inaccurate " then logicians are not very bright. > > > What do you mean by "model"? > Why in the world are you asking me? You're the one who introduced the word as if it had some profound significance to the question at hand. >> >> >> 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. > > > > > Reality is the final arbiter. (and this does not necessarily means > physical reality, > I want to know if my physical bones will end up getting broken if I try to cross that bridge, I don't care if my mathematical bones are broken whatever the hell they are, or my logical bones or my hypothetical bones, I'm only concerned with my physical bones and only physics can tell me what their fate will be when my weight and that bridge encounter each other. > > > Today's fundamental physics does not exist. > True, but as you pointed out a theory is a description of something it is not the thing itself. And no description is perfect. > > > Attempts to get both GR and QM fails up to now. > True again at least for now, but we don't know for a fact that will always be true, and I rather suspect it will not. In contrast thank's to the work of Godel and Turing we do know for a fact there will never be a fundamental theory of mathematics that embraces everything that is mathematically true and nothing that is false. > >> >> 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. > > > > > I think you are ambiguous. > What could be less ambiguous than a collapsing bridge? > > > I am not sure if by physics you mean the theory, or the possible reaiilty > that > (blah blah....) > I mean distinguishing between 2 outcomes: 1) A broken bone. 2) No broken bone. Is that clear enough for you? >> >> >> Thomson's lamp >> problem is perfectly clear, >> > > > > ? > For god's sake Bruno, if you've never heard of Thomson's Lamp then Google it, that's why the thing was invented! > > Well, with mechanism, Thomson's lamp does not exist. Nor any lamp ... > **Nor any lamp?* What the hell???* > > Gödels shows that theories (rich enough to add and multiply) are > necessarily incomplete. > More accurately (I hope you know what that word means) Godel showed that any logical system rich enough to do arithmetic can't be complete and also be able to prove its own self consistency. > > > Theories use language, but are not language. > Theories describe reality and do so with various degrees of success, but they are not reality, and all theories are either unable to describe all of reality, or are able to describe things that are not real, or both. > > once the program is implemented (which has cost some energy, if only to > erase the memory so that we can put the program), then, after pushing > "enter", the > (reversablr) > computation will run without using any energy. > > In the billiard model, you need to kick some balls, but, assuming perfect > smoothness of the table, and perfect elasticity of the ball > In other words a real billiard ball computer could run forever with no energy if the laws of physics were different from what they are. But they're not different from what they are. And it takes a real computer to make a real calculation. As I said before even a reversible computer needs energy because of thermal differences and the non zero probability of unwanted interaction s among the parts of the machine, and the less energy it uses the slower it operates. However as the universe gradually runs down and cools off a reversible computer will find it more and more economical to perform a calculation. So it might be possible (depending on which cosmological model turns out to be the most accurate) to perform a infinite number of calculation s with a finite amount of energy, although it would probably take a infinite amount of time to do so. But a infinite amount of time might be available, nobody knows for sure. > > information itself is mathematical > Then why does it take physical energy to erase it? It takes kT*ln2 joules t o erase one bit of information where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature in degrees kelvin of the object doing the computation. And entropy was not first discovered by mathematicians or even by physicists, it was discovered by engineers trying to make better steam engines; and yet we now know that a message containing information has entropy. > >> >> if Everett is correct and QM is correct then information and mind have >> to be physical >> too. >> > > > > Why? > Because i f my consciousness changes my physical brain changes and if my physical brain changes my consciousness changes. Everett has nothing to do with it. >> >> If my consciousness changes my physical brain changes. > > > > > With mechanism, there is no ontological physical brain. > Don't be ridiculous! >> >> What more evidence in favor of >> >> physicalism >> do you need? What more evidence could there even be? >> > > > > You would have given evidence for the existence of a physical reality, > OK: 1) I think therefore I'm real. 2) When I change my physical brain changes. 3) When my physical brain changes I change. 4) Therefore my physical brain is real. 5) Therefore physical reality exists. 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.
