On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:40 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> Physics CAN safely assume that neither Aristotle nor any other ancient >> Greek fossil can be of the slightest help in answering modern cutting edge >> scientific questions. > > > > *But we re not doing physics, but metaphysics.* > The trouble with metaphysics is it's too easy, because it doesn't use the scientific method but does allow invisible evidence any theory will work just fine because there are no facts they need to fit. There are a infinite number of metaphysical theories and one is as good as the other. > > *take Aristotle’s theology* > Please! > > *Aristotle theology, and [,,,,[ Plato was [...] Aristotle, who did not > [...]* > And the longest fossilized turd from a extinct thing was 40 inches long and sold for $8,000 in 2014. I guess if something is old enough somebody will think it has value. You can read all about this massive turd here" OLD FOSSILIZED TURD <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/longest-fossilized-poop-to-be-sold-at-auction/> > > *closer to Plato, even Pythagorus, than to Aristotle.* > It's interesting, out of all the ancient Greeks you keep yammering about you never mention the greatest of them all Archimedes, and he was a mathematician and an excellent one. >>SHOW Me this mystical Turing Machine of yours that doesn't need matter or >> physics make a calculation, don't tell me about it, don't claim to have >> a proof about it, just SHOW ME it making a calculation. And there is >> nothing fuzzy about that request. > > > > *I have done that, but then you criticise it as being “invisible”. * > Yes how unreasonable for me not to be impressed by invisible evidence. > *there is no paper showing that primary matter exists.* > Two can play this game, I have invisible evidence it does exist. > *> You speculate on something, just to prevent scientific testing. That is > unscientific.* > But of course accepting invisible evidence is very very scientific. >>That's not as bad as being confused about what you just proved even after >> you've finished correctly manipulating all the symbols in the proof. > > > ? > *!* *> Human are made of matter and obey to physics, sure, but that does not > mean that this matter is primitive.* > But it does mean matter can do something numbers can't. > >> Did you know that of all the people that have extended his work Godel >> thought Turing's was the most profound? He had more respect for Turing than >> Church even though Church independently solved the halting problem a few >> months before Turing because in the process of solving it Turing told us >> something new about the physical world that Church did not. > > > > *That is plainly wrong.* > I don't think so, and my evidence that backs up what I say isn't invisible. Godel said: *“ [Turing] has for the first time succeeded in giving an absolute definition of an interesting epistemological notion, i.e., one not depending on the formalism chosen.” -Godel, Princeton Bicentennial, [1946, p. 84]* Please note the words "not depending on the formalism chosen", Godel thought Turing didn't just prove something about symbols but proved something about the real physical world. Even Alonzo Church admitted Turing did something he didn't. *" [Computability by a Turing machine] has the advantage of making the identification with effectiveness in the ordinary (not explicitly defined) sense evident immediately—i.e., without the necessity of proving preliminary theorems.” -Alonzo Church, [1937], Review of Turing [1936]* And Godel had plenty of other good stuff to say about Turing: *"But** I was completely convinced only by Turing’s paper.” -Godel: letter to Kreisel of May 1, 1968 [Sieg, 1994, p. 88].* *“That this really is the correct definition of mechanical computability was established beyond any doubt by Turing.” -Godel 193? Notes in Nachlass [1935] * *"The greatest improvement [in my work] was made possible through the precise definition of the concept of finite procedure, . . . This concept, . . . is equivalent to the concept of a ‘computable function of integers’ . . . The most satisfactory way, in my opinion, is that of reducing the concept of finite procedure to that of a machine with a finite number of parts, as has been done by the British mathematician Turing.” —-Godel [1951, pp. 304–305], Gibbs lecture* And Mathematician Robert I Soare had this to say: *"Godel was interested in the intensional analysis of finite procedure. He never believed the arguments and confluence evidence which Church presented to justify his Thesis. On the other hand Godel accepted immediately not only Turing machines, but more importantly the analysis Turing gave of a finite procedure."* > >> OK, you're un-observable Turing Machine can make calculations without >> matter or physics, but that's nothing, my un-observable angel who likes >> to dance on the head of a pin can compute non-computable functions like >> the Busy Beaver. My my un-observable thing can beat your observable thing >> ! > > > *> ?* > Which word didn't you understand? > *> In the Aristotelian theology* [...] > In 2018 why on Earth would anybody have even the slightest bit of interest in Aristotelian theology, or of any Greek theology, or any theology at all? > *> You are a fan of Aristotle theology,* > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > >Your problem is even if you are able to follow all the steps in a proof >> after you've finished all the steps you don't have a deep understanding >> of exactly what it is that you just proved. > > > *Argument?* > I'll do much better, I'll give an example. After your brain (which is made of matter and obeys all the laws of physics) learned how to manipulate the symbols in Robinson arithmetic and proved a theorem in it you think that proof is telling you calculations can be made without matter or physics. > >>There is a reason the Multiverse has always existed or there isn't. > > > >Yes, and there is a reason. > I won't even ask what silly thing you dreamed up or what invisible evidence you have in support of it, instead I will ask a more important question, is there a reason for that reason? >>a simulated person can observe a simulated typhoon but so can we who are >> outside the computer because the simulation can change things in our world >> in addition to the simulated world; if we couldn't see it too nobody >> would bother to make computer simulations. But unlike simulations nobody >> anywhere can observe your mystical non-material Turing Machine because it >> doesn't have the ability to change anything in time or space. > > > *> Everyone see this. * > Good, so you admit matter has properties arithmetic does not, a Turing Machine made of matter has the ability to be observable and the ability to change in spacetime, your mystical invisible nonmaterial Turing Machine can't do either. > >> I'll make this as easy for you as I can, forget calculation forget >> Turing Machines forget measurement, all you have to do is show me one thing >> that makes no use of matter or energy or the laws of physics that can >> change in time or space or both. > > > > *That is impossible, * > I most certainly agree, it's impossible, and as time and space are rather important to me I'm not very interested in your mystical invisible Turing Machine that can't do anything in either. > > *and there is no reason to ask me this, unless you invoke your faith in > time and space,* > So you ask me to ignore time and space and matter and energy and have faith in an invisible mystical nonmaterial Turing Machine and just listen to you. That's asking rather a lot. > >> So the value of 2+2 is one thing in Moscow and something different in > >> Washington, >> and it changes from Wednesday to Thursday? > > > > *You can see it that way. * > What the hell? Even for you that's nuts. > >>No program can be executed without a computer that is made of matter >> and uses energy. > > > >*That contradicts the definition of execution in computer science.* > The graduates of any school of computer science that used a definition of "execution" that have nothing to do with time or space or matter or energy would NEVER be able to get a job, so it's fortunate no such school of computer science exists; or if it does the school is invisible and does not change in time or space. >>If there is a infinity of levels then nothing is primary, >> > > *> Why? With mechanism, you can take the numbers, or the combinators, or > any term of any Turing-complete theory as primitive, * > If something is primitive then something exists for no reason and there are not a infinite number of iterated questions, the series eventually ends with a brute fact. > > *You would read the greeks,* > If you put a gun to my head perhaps. > *Textbook can contain proofs but do not prove.* > Then why do you keep referring me to some textbook every time I say calculations can't be made without matter energy and physics >> "a Turing Machine" can't [change] because ASCII characters never change. > > > *> Change relatively to what? * > Time and space. And a Turing Machine that does not make use of matter and the laws of physics can't change in time or space and as both play a key part in consciousness it's odd that you don't think that's important given that you keep talking about consciousness. > *> You god the primary physical universe [...]* > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > >>Why on Earth would any rational person keep reading a proof after they >> found a blunder that the author can't fix? > > > *> All scientist do that all the time*. > BULLSHIT. Scientists have better things to do with their time than to continue reading a proof after they already know it can't be correct. >>In the first place Einstein was a physicist not a mathematician and the >> block universe involves matter and energy. > > > *>But not time, which was the object of the discussion.* > You discuss consciousness constantly, and there is no property more important to consciousness than time. And don't tell me time is just an illusion because illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon and subjectivity is what we're talking about. >>In the second place the block universe as a whole never changes (if we >> ignore Quantum Mechanics as Einstein did) and so can't calculate and even >> if it did nobody could see it, but things in it can calculate. > > > > *> So it is like the arithmetical reality. It does not calculate, but > contains all universal numbers * > I'd never heard of "universal numbers" before so I asked Google about them and all I got was a bunch of astrology websites. Apparently the "universal numbers" are 1 through 9 plus for some bizarre reason 11 22 and 33. They may explain the astrological significance of those numbers but I was too bored to read more. >>The word "protocol" makes it sound very scientific but you don't even know >> who the personal pronouns that infested the thought experiment refer to after >> you ground them up in your personal pronoun duplicating machine. > > > > *Where? We did agree on all pronouns used at each state.* > OF COURSE WE DIDN'T AGREE! The iron clad proof that you are utterly confused is that even after your thought exparament is long over you *STILL* don't know what the correct prediction Mr. He should have made yesterday back in Helsinki because you have no idea who the hell Mr.He is. You quite literally don't know what you're talking about, but that doesn't inhibit you in the slightest from talking about Mr.He . >>And that is exactly what's wrong with your "protocol", I don't know who's >> "*THE* first person experience" you're talking about and neither do you. >> > > > *> That is what we know the best, and with mechanism, we attribute 1p > consciousness to both copies, and both see only one city, and recognise he > could not have predict it in Helsinki, which is the point.* > That's nice, but you haven't answered my question. When you demand predictions about "*THE* first person experience" after introducing a *THE* first person experience duplicating machines who's "*THE* first person experience" do you want the prediction to be about? I've been asking this same damn question for over 5 years and I haven't got a straight answer out of you yet and I don't expect I ever will. >>I don't know who the hell Mr.He is > > > *>The H-guy.* > That's not nearly specific enough because both the M-guy and the W-guy are the H-guy. So who exactly did you want to make a prediction yesterday in Helsinki and who exactly did you want the prediction to be about? Your complete inability to answer this simple question is proof your thought exparament is not thoughtful and is not an exparament at all, it's gibberish. > >>So you think 2 Catholics in 2 different cities will only see one city, > > > *> Each of them? * > No, my question was how many cities will Catholics see. I can think of no reason why 2 Catholics can't see 2 different cities at the same time. > > *Then you die, and you backtrack on mechanism* > John Clark doesn't know if that's true or not because John Clark doesn't know who Mr.You is, and Bruno has even less understanding of Mr.You's identity than John Clark does. >>I don't know who the hell this mysterious Mr.He is that you keep talking >> about. > > > > *It is always the H-guy, who survives into HM and HW, but, of course, > only in one of them from the 1p view.* > So now that the experiment is over which one did it turn out survived from the one and only "*THE* 1p view"? Was it HM or HW? You don't know the answer because you don't know the question and neither do I. 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.
