> On 18 Apr 2018, at 19:30, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> Ad hominem my ass! Bruno > > > Try to be polite please. > > Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases like "Ad hominem" and even more > important try sending only ASCII sequential characters to this list that > convey a meaning. > > > > You participate, with the many pseudo-religious interest, > > Well, I'm interested in not dying just like religious people are I'll give > you that, so that's why I signed up with Alcor. I already gave my reasons for > saying information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of > the soul and still remain within the scientific method and you have never > given me a reason to think otherwise. > > > theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks, > > TO HELL WITH WHAT IT MEANS TO THE IDIOT GREEKS! Nobody on this list is a > idiot Greek because the last one died over 2 thousand years ago, its time to > move o > > > > I use “theology” to help people to see [....] > > Bullshit, you don't use that word to help people see anything, you use > "theology" as an insult because you know atheist don't like it, and you use > new homemade acronyms and bizarre meanings for common words and change those > meanings from post to post because the clear use of language in describing > your ideas would make it obvious to all that they make no sense. > > > > Logicians have no problems with my work at all. Only biggot atheist, but > I don’t know any logicians as such. > > If you don't know any fellow logicians how do you know they have no problem > with your work? > > > Please, take some time to study pre-christian theology. > > NO! Not a snowball's chance in hell! It's just bizarre, with beautiful new > discoveries being made in science nearly every day your advice to somebody > who wants to understand how the world works is to read some dusty old book on > pre-christian theology. > > > Some christians and some atheists have written excellent introduction to > Plotinus and Proclus. > > I don't give a tinkers dam about Plotinus and Proclus, and with all the > fascinating things beings discovered right now why are you wasting your > valuable brain cells on relics of a far more ignorant age? > > > Read Wallis’ book on Neoplatonism. > > Why? So I can count the number of times the Neoplatonists made fools of > themselves? > > >> In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all, > > > I am talking about mathematics and computer science. They do redefine all > terms, in any long papers. > > > BULLSHIT! I've subscribed to scientific journals for decades and I've never > once read an article that starts out by redefining a common word to mean > something entirely different from its well known meaning, and the only > reason somebody would do such a thing would be as a smoke screen to cover up > fuzzy thinking. No respectable scientist would do such a thing and neither > would a logician who had intellectual integrity. > > >> So physics can do something that mathematics can’t. > > > Like a program computing taxes can do immediately what no unprogrammed > universal machine could do. So, yes, but not as an argument in favour of > materialism. > > I have no idea what your talking about, none at all. > > > You need to study the proof, here it your blindness in step 3 > > To hell with your idiotic childish amateurish step 3. I'm never going to > read another word of that damn thing until you fix the blunders in the parts > I have read.
I suppose there will be soon or later some opportunity that I explain “step 3” to Lawrence or Grayson. We will see if they will find your alleged “blunders”, and if not, if you can convince them about. Bruno > > > See above. > > NO! > > > Why should a textbook be able to compute? > You tell me, every time I say calculating 2+2 would be impossible without > matter that obeys the laws of physics for some strange reason you start > talking about a textbook that tells a story written in the language of > mathematics. It would be as if I claimed brooms could fly and as proof I > showed you a Harry Potter story written in the language of English. Making up > something that can do incredible things is one thing but actually doing it in > the real physical world is far far harder because physics is more fundamental > than mathematics > > > But a number or a digital machine (an immaterial notion) can > > That would be BIG news to everybody in Silicon Valley so I just have one > question, why aren't you the richest man in the world? > > > in the sense of Church-Turing. Indeed, that is a basic truth which has > been used to design physical computers. > > I agree, they made the first and best description of how to organize matter > that obeys the laws of physics in a way that turns it into a universal > computer, and they made their description in the language best suited for > doing so, mathematics. > > > I could also reverse the charge: if you believe in primary matter, give > me just one evidence. > > OK, my computer doing mathematics. Now its your turn, show me mathematics > doing my computer. If that's too hard then just give me one example of PURE > mathematics doing something, anything. Even existing would be good enough, > just show me that pure mathematics exists without using matter that obeys the > laws of physics. Mathematics does a great job describing the universe but > without the universe there would be nothing to describe, if there weren’t at > least 2 things in it numbers would have no meaning. > > > the theology of Aristotle. > > Screw theology and screw Aristotle. > > >> in what sense is that story more real than the story of Harry Potter > written in the language of English? Actually I happen to think the triangular > number story is more real than the Harry Potter story because it is more > closely related to matter that obeys the laws of physics. But why do you > think so? > > > Because it follows from the simple principles on which most agree in > elementary arithmetic. > > And flying brooms are consistent with the laws of magic as described in > Harry Potter stories written in the language of English, and they are well > written stories with only a few plot holes. And mathematicians have also > written a story with only a few plot holes (such as the one Godel found) but > nevertheless I have never seen a broom fly and I've never seen a computation > made without matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
