On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > You invoke your God “Matter” > Gee, I don't think I've ever hear that insult from you before. > > > to avoid testing the consequence of an hypothesis. > The consequence of the physics is more fundamental hypothesis is that we'd expect to find lots of examples of physics doing mathematics but no examples of mathematics doing physics, and that is exactly precisely what we do in fact see. > > >>> >> >>> ***It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have >>> the quantum, phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with >>> mechanism, we have to to justify the quantum from the sum on all >>> computations, not just the quantum one. * >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't have a clue what that means and I doubt anyone else does either. > > > ** > *Yes, OK. I summed up what follows from after step 3. * > Then that is yet another good reason for me to have stopped reading after you couldn't defend step 3 by answer even the simplest questions about it; apparently things get even more incoherent after that point, not that it matters, if step 3 is wrong then step 4, whatever it may be, is irrelevant. >> >> >> Don't tell me, tell INTEL that they've been wasting their time all these >> years making microchips when all they needed was those two lines. > > > > > *Those two lines have made some people building LISP machines already.* > Every single LISP machine in existence is made of atoms that obey the laws of physics. There are no exceptions. >> >> to do that you need physics. > > > *> In your theory. But then you should not say yes to a future “doctor” > as you did. I’m afraid you are inconsistent.* > I said I am the way atoms behave when they are organized in a Johnkclarkian way, and I said physics is more fundamental than mathematics. Where in the world is the inconsistency in that? >> >> you need INTEL's microchips. > > > > > *They would not exist if their cousins were not discovered before (in > arithmetic, combinator logic, etc.).* > I agree, humans need the language of mathematics to help them understand whats going on at the physical level so they can make the chips. But the question I keep asking and you are unable to answer is if mathematics is more fundamental than physics why do INTEL microchips even *NEED* to exist? > > > You say a truism: to get a universal physical number, we need the physical. > I have no idea what a "universal physical number" is and I doubt anybody other than you does either but never mind, whatever it means you just admitted physics can do something that mathematics can't. > Why would any book be able to do a computation? > You tell me!! Every time I say pure mathematics can't calculate anything you say some textbook is a counterexample to my claim. > > > if you succeed in understanding the chapter 4 of the Davis book > > > you would understand that > [...] > ... chapter 4 of the Davis book can't calculate one damn thing > > > *you have to describe me the “physical oracle”* Oh it would be easy to describe one, its a small rectangular box and you may have one in your pocket right now, its called a "iPhone". > > > *You just impose your god* > [...] > > *In your religion.* > ** [...] > *You invoke your God “Matter”* > Bruno, you really need to get some fresh material, I humbly suggest "1001 insults and put-downs", its only $9.95 on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Insults-Put-Downs-Comebacks-Steven-Price/dp/1599210738 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.
