> On 28 Jul 2018, at 19:20, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >>Despite what the current President of the USA says facts actually exist; > >>and so it is not an assumption it is a FACT that neither I nor anybody else > >>has ever seen a calculation other than the physical sort. > > >That is an obvious fact, and it proves nothing > > So you believe facts prove nothing. Is your middle name "Trump”?
Facts can make some theories more or less plausible, but cannot prove any theory, as we know since the dream argument. That is elementary epistemology. > > > Seeing proves nothing. > > It all comes down to asking myself one question, who am I going to believe, > you or my lying eyes? Facts provide finite amount of information, where most theories extrapolate them to an infinity of proposition. Facts proves at most that we have here-and-now some experience. > > >It can only augment or diminish the plausibility of a theory > Theory? Its not just that nobody has ever observed the phenomenon, there is > not even a theory of non-physical computation, > There is no theory of computation which assumes anything physical. You talk about physical computations only, but even the books or papers on physical computations define them by “physical implementation of the usual standard mathematical notion. I asked you to provide a definition of a physical computation which do not borrow the mathematical notion (that you can find in basically all papers which found the subject, like in Davis “The Undecidable”), but you didn’t answer. You continue to use Aristotle criteria of reality (observation), which begs the question in pur debate. > nobody has ever proposed a mechanism about how it could work, not even a > implausible one. > Just tell me how a universal Turing machine could distinguish an arithmetical reality from a physical one. Or explain what is the primitive matter, and how it selects the "conscious computations”. You cannot do that without abandoning computationalism. > So there is no evidence it exists and no ideas about how it might exist, you > just say it does. The fundamental problem is that no non-physical thing can > change itself or another non-physical thing, it can't DO anything. > Of course it can. “Doing” is a relative notion. I guess you mean that mathematics cannot create some ontological matters, but there has never been any evidence for such matter. Neither direct evidences of course, but when we look at the indirect evidences, like the many-computations below the substitution level, or the quantum logic structure of the observable, we get only confirmation of mechanism, including its immaterialism. > Yes the textbooks you keep talking about contain recipes that tell me how I > can make such a change, but the trouble is I am not non-physical. > > You don’t know that. It is your belief. You need to learn to doubt such belief, or you will look like a religious radical. > >unless you are using Aristotle [...] > > Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, > Greeks, Greeks, [...] > > >we have to backtrack to Plato > > Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, > Greeks, Greeks, [...] > > >The fact that some people are wrong in some domain (geography) does not > >entail that they were wrong in another domain. > > Your Greek heroes died 2500 years ago and the human race has learned a thing > or two since then, except for pure mathematics they were wrong about nearly > everything in every domain. Even the rare times an ancient Greek did find a > true physical fact, like Eratosthenes did when he measured the diameter of > the Earth, it was far from universally accepted in Greek culture . > > >we have regress a lot in the most fundamental science (theology or > >metaphysics). > > Theology has no subject so you can't regress from it because its already at > zero; there is no there there. Well. I begin to suspect that you are a sort of priest, after all. Anyone mocking Theology is a convinced Aristotelian theologian. You believe in the God “matter”. In science, we keep our personal belief, and look at the difficulties of theories (which are belief + awareness that we might have to change them). You talk like if you knew the truth in metaphysics. Bruno > > > Indeed, some people still believe that seeing the moon is a prove of the > > existence of a primary moon, which is simply not valid, > > This confirms what I said before, you don't understand what philosophers mean > when they say "primary matter". > > >Pythagoras and Plato understood [...] > > Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, > Greeks, Greeks, [...] > > > Aristotle metaphysics[...] > > Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, > Greeks, Greeks, [...] > > 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.
