On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a >> book and nobody ever will. > > > >* * > *That contradicts all publication in the field.* > Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico or other varieties of junk science, but show me one citation from the journal Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters or The Journal of Applied Physics demonstrating a non-physical calculation. Just one will do. > > *You seem to never have open any book nor paper in that subject* That's because opening a book requires energy as does performing calculations, and pure numbers are unable to give me any energy so I am unable to open a book much less perform a calculation. > the whole point will be that there is nothing unique concerning any computations. All are implemented in infinitely many ways in Arithmetic. Yes and out of those infinitely many ways of doing arithmetic all but one of them is incorrect, that is to say only one of those ways is compatible with physical reality and that is the one the sheep herder who invented arithmetic many thousands of years ago decided to use because it was the only one that helped him with his job. Your fundamental blunder is you've forgotten what a function is, you've forgotten what your high school algebra teacher said on the very first day of class, he said a function is a machine, you put something into it and if you perform the calculations it says to perform something different will come out. A function is instructions written in a very compact form but by itself it can't do anything. A cake recipe is not a cake nor can it make a cake without the help of a baker, a baker that is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >> but physics can. > > > *Really?* > Yes really. > *> How?* > With NAND and NOR circuits made from mechanical rods ratchets and gears or vacuum tubes or transistors or microchips or some other arrangement of matter that obeys the laws of physics, such as the neurons in the bone box on your shoulders. > *>* > *If mechanism is true, I don’t see how that primary matter can influence > consciousness or create it* > It does not make the slightest difference if you understand the connection between matter and consciousness or not because it remains a experimental FACT that when your brain changes your consciousness changes and when your consciousness changes you brain changes. Matter doesn't care that you have not figgured out how matter produces consciousness , matter does it does it anyway. > *>without invoking some non Turing computable, and non FPI > recoverable, notions.* > Nobody has ever provided even the tiniest speck of evidence that there is a connection between Turing non-computability and consciousness other than consciousness is sorta weird and non-computability is sorta weird. > > *A book cannot make a computation, trivially, but a number, relatively to > other numbers, do it, thanks to the laws of addition and multiplication.* > Why those rules when there are a infinite number of ways two numbers can be associated with a third number? Because even though the sheep herder who invented arithmetic lived thousands of years before Newton he knew intuitively that only one of those ways was compatible with 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. 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.
