On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> *>>> Matter = observable* >> >> >>Speed is observable, is speed matter? > > *>Yes, * > So adjectives are made of matter. >*and it belong to the realm of the quanta. * So numbers are made of numbers too. > >>The qualia red is observable, is red matter? > > > >Yes, > Wow, even qualia is matter! Meaning needs contrast, if everything is X then X means nothing. >*There is no evidence that a brain, or an amoeba, is made of primary > matter.* > In a way that's true, you say everything is made of matter and that is equivalent to saying nothing is made of matter. > *>It is “physical”, but not in physics.* > That sounds like something you'd read in a fortune cookie but if true then art is not in artistic, politics is not in political, number theory is not in numbers, and intellect is not in intelligence. > >>You can't have a Turing Machine without a machine > > > >*That contradicts all papers on Turing machine. * > I have no doubt it contradicts all your papers, but not those of Mr. Turing's. > > *A Turing machine is finite set of quadruplets,* > A finite set of quadruplets can't compute a thing or do anything else without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics, if they could Intel wouldn't be so interested in the element with atomic number 14. > >*Robison arithmetic can prove the existence of richer theories like PA > and ZF. * > Without the help of a brain made of matter, like the one in Mr. Robinson's head, Robinson arithmetic can't prove PA or ZF or anything else. If you want something to happen, like completing a proof, mathematics is not enough, you're going to need physics to help you. >*You commit an ontological commitment to defeat a theory. That is how the > creationist criticise the theory of evolution. * > Yeah yeah we've heard that stale insult a thousand times before, I'm just one super religious dude. Bruno, you've really got to get some new material. > > *Quantum mechanics shows, at the least, that the notion of matter is > unclear,* > There is a lot about Quantum Mechanics that is unclear, but you are not helping to clarify things. *> There is no atoms, once we postulate Mechanism. * > So you advise if physics is to advance it should first move backwards about 130 years. I think I'll pass on that. > >*That is the result of the informal UDA,* > You have forgotten IHA. > *That is not obvious, especially if you are stuck at the easiest step > (step 3).* So I guess the other steps are even dumber, but I'll never know for sure because I'll never read them until you fix the colossal blunder you made in step 3. >*my conscious experience cannot be associate with any particular > computational state, but with an infinity of them,* > There is no evidence that at the fundamental level the human mind works on analog principles, and given the large amount of noise in the brain its very hard to see how it could. Noise is the mortal enemy of analog computing. 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.
