On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> *Since 529.Metaphysics has been done with the scientific attitude before. > It is not easy to come back to this because in this filed, since 529 we > have been brainswahedq by fairy tales, * > And the scientific knowledge that existed in 529 AD was about the same as the the scientific knowledge that existed in 529 BC, so apparently doing metaphysics with any sort of attitude is a waste of time. > *When we do it with the scientific method, we get experimental means to > verify it.* > You can't experiment with invisible factors and an experiment that produces invisible results verifies nothing. This is even true for thought experiments, a good thought experiment could in theory actually be performed and only monetary or technological limitations prevent you from doing so, but the thing you call a thought experiment could never be performed regardless of how much money you had or your level of technology because as described it is full of logical self contradictions. And as a result it is a recipe for self delusion, and the easiest person to fool is yourself. > *conception of reality before Aristotle* [...] > Why should I give a tinker's damn about the conception of reality before Aristotle? > *> You talk like if the consciousness problem was solved.* > I talk like there is no point in worrying about consciousness until you've first solved the problem of intelligence, and that is something you never talk about. Why? Because coming up with a intelligence theory, even a mediocre one, is incredibly hard. But coming up with a consciousness theory is incredibly easy, any theory will work just fine because there are no facts the theory must fit. > > *I am OK that consciousness is easier than intelligence to solve,* > I know you are. A good theory must fit the facts. There are no known facts about consciousness. Your theory fits all known facts about consciousness. Therefore your theory is a good theory about consciousness, just like every other theory about consciousness. >* t**o come back to the pre-aristotelian conception of reality* [...] > No, let's not come back to that. Is it physically possible for you to stop yammering for 2 seconds about a group of people who knew less science than a bright fourth grader and less mathematics than a bright eighth grader? > > *you invoke the Aristotelian religion** that* [...] > Apparently the answer is no. > > *we don’t discuss mathematics here.* > We don't discuss mathematics on the EVERYTHING list? *> Of course Archimedes was a great guy, no doubt, but he was not an expert > in metaphysics and theology.* > And one of the reasons Archimedes was a great guy, the greatest of all the ancient Greeks and the one that has best survived the test of time, is because he didn't waste his time with metaphysics or theology. > >> Two can play this game, I have invisible evidence it [ a halting >> problem solver] does exist. > > > *> Then explain them. * > There are no results to explain because my universal halting problem solver is invisible as are all the answers to the problems it's asked, just like your invisible Turing Machine except mine is better. My invisible machine can solve the Halting Problem but your invisible machine can't. > *> Plato was skeptical on* [...] > And little Joey Smith in the fourth grade who just got a B+ on his science test is skeptical about some stuff too. I can't think of any reason I should be more interested in Plato's skepticism than the skepticism of little Joey Smith. > *The idea that visibility is evidence is exactly the Aristotelian > theology,* > There is another name for the idea that evidence must be visible, it's called "The Scientific Method". And I don't know what the word "theology" means in Brunospeak. > > i*n christianity through St-Thomas* [...] > And I care even less about what Christianity through St.Thomas thought about things than I do for the goddamn ancient Greeks. > > to denote Aristotle’s notion of [...] > I have a good idea, let's not note or denote Aristotle’s notion of anything. *>> *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. > > > *> Nor did Turing. The independence of the formalism means here that you > can take arithmetic, or fortran, or lisp, or lambda calculus, etc. * > Look up the word formalism in Google and the first definition is "*excessive adherence to prescribed forms*". The second definition is "*a description of something in formal mathematical or logical terms*". Please note the use of the word "description". Mathematics is the best *language *for describing the way the physical world operates but there are limits on what even the best language can do. Any language can write fiction as well as nonfiction, the story Newton told about gravity was based on reality just as a well written historical novel is, the story was written in the language of mathematics and contained no grammatical errors or logical plot holes but when we looked close enough at real physical gravity we discovered that Newton's gravity does not exist. Mathematical consistency is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee existence. > > *This has nothing to do with physics, as none of those formalism > assumes anything in physics.* > True, arithmetic and fortran and lisp and lambda calculus have nothing to do with physics, and that is exactly why Godel thought Turing's work was superior because Turing showed that none of those formalisms were needed, you only need matter energy and the laws of physics to compute anything that can be computed. > > * now we see that some confuse* [...] > But very few are so confused they don't know the referent of the personal pronouns they use even when the very thing they're trying to illustrate is the nature of personal identity. > > *the Turing machine does not assume more physics* > Of course it assumes physics! You can't move a tape or write a 0 or 1 on it without being physical. *>>"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* > > *> But Godel knew, as everyone, that the Turing machine is non material.* > What the hell is non material about "a machine with a finite number of parts"? Can you think of anything more material than that? I can't. Godel also said "That this really is the correct definition of mechanical computability was established beyond any doubt by Turing.” If the word "mechanical" is to have any meaning it can't be non material. *> And Turing was the one showing that his (more pedagogical perhaps) > formalism was equivalent with Lambda calculus,* > Yes, what a Turing Machine is doing can be described in the language of Lambda calculus but a Turing Machine is not a language, it is not describing anything, it is doing, it is the thing being described. It's like confusing cow and "cow" and after writing the following in the language of English "the cow jumped over the moon" claimed to have proved that a bovine mammal is capable of achieving escape velocity of 11,200 meters per second. > > *People who says that theology makes no sense* > That very statement makes no sense to me because as I said I don't know what "theology" means in Brunospeak and I'm pretty sure Bruno doesn't either. > *> are usually people who takes Aristotelian theology for granted. * > It's some sort of weird obsession I guess, all the secrets of universe can be found in the writings of the scientific illiterate ancient Greeks. > > *You beg the question by identifying/confusing the concept of *[...] > At least I'm not confused about who the referent is of the personal pronouns that I use. > *God with Christian theory of God* > Just once I'd like to see a post from you that doesn't mention God, Christians, theology or goddamn brain dead ancient Greeks! But I don't suppose I'll ever get my wish. > If we believe that 2+2 = 4 independently of us [...] > The English language is not independent of us, without us it wouldn't exist, and the language of mathematics is not independent of physics, if there were not at least 2 different physical things in the universe then 2+2=4 would not make sense to anyone even if there was someone around to try, and there wouldn't be. *> We would never been able to implement the arithmetical computation in > matter, and handle them properly, without having discovered them in > mathematics.* That is certainly true, a language is powerful tool that helps brains in reasoning, and when it comes to physics there is no better language than mathematics. > *I ask you perhaps also to leave your personal convictions out of the > room.* > So says the man who is personally convinced that invisible evidence is scientific evidence. > > *that makes theology and physics independent of the formalism.* > You equate science with theology? Theology is the only "science" that has no field of study, at least if the word has its standard meaning, but I'm not fluent in Brunospeak, nobody is not even Bruno. > >> a Turing Machine that does not make use of matter and the laws of >> physics can't change in time > > > *> It changes relatively to any numbering “time”, called "steps" in > computability theory. Those digital steps needs the number successor > relation, not any physical space or time.* > If time and space are not made use of in your mystical invisible timeless Turing Machine how do you go from step N to step N+1, what is the relationship between the 2 steps? For a physical Turing Machine a change in time enables the machine to change to the next step and move in space so it can read the next symbol and change it and then go into the next state, but it all starts with a change in time. But without time what gets things going? You've got to have something that does the equivalent of what time and space does for a physical Turing Machine but I can't imagine what it could be. What changes to enable your mystical invisible Turing Machine to go to the next step if it's not time and how does it get that new information on the tape without moving in space? And while you're at it explain how a non-material Turing machine that has nothing to do with time or space can be so important when time and space are so critical to our intelligence and consciousness. > >> Scientists have better things to do with their time than to continue >> reading a proof after they already know it can't be correct. > > > *> False. If a scientist believe that a proof cannot be correct, he will > do the work and show where the proof is incorrect, or change its mind. * > I can know your proof is incorrect by just asking a few very simple questions about the thought experiment it is based on; such as " after the experiment has been concluded what did the correct answer turn out to be, Moscow or Washington?" or " as neither the Washington Man nor the Moscow man existed yesterday back in Helsinki who exactly was supposed to make the prediction yesterday back in Helsinki and just as important who exactly was the prediction supposed to be about?" It is not my responsibility to fix this ridiculous mess and is certainly not my responsibility to read more of it. >> You discuss consciousness constantly, and there is no property more >> important to consciousness than time. > > > > T*he mundane type of consciousness requires time. OK. * > Mundane? Time is mundane?? >> OF COURSE WE DIDN'T AGREE! > > > > *You did agree that HM and HW are the H_guy. * > Yes, we agreed HM guy is the H guy but also the H guy is *not *the HM guy because H is a proper subset of HM (and HW too); and we also agreed the HM guy is *not* the HW guy. So you can't just throw around personal pronouns and ask what "he" should predict about what "he" will see. Do both those "he" personal pronouns refer to the same person? Who do they refer to? You can't answer any of these questions and that's why you continue to use personal pronouns to try to cover up that inability. > >> 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 > > > *> It “W v M” but I cannot be sure of which one.* > If *AFTER *the experiment you *STILL* don't know what the correct answer should have been then it was not a experiment and only a fool would keep reading more about it. >>you have no idea who the hell Mr.He is. > > > > *It is the Huy in Helsinki. * > You're free to make any definition you like but that one is too restrictive to be useful because tomorrow there will be no guy in Helsinki. If that is your definition of the H guy then tomorrow the H guy will see no city at all, but I think a far more useful definition is the H guy today is anyone who remembers being the H guy yesterday. >> 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 . > > > *> What is your prediction?* > If I'm one of your timeless invisible Turing Machines then that question is meaningless as is the word "prediction", but I'm not a invisible Turing Machine timeless so I know what the word means, however before I give you my prediction give me yours. Bob is duplicated. Bob is sent to Washington and Moscow. What one and only one city will Bob see? Predict it or call it for what it is, a very stupid question. *> THE experience is duplicated from the view of a third person guy, but is > not from the first person of both copies. They see only one city, and can > only infer the presence of a doppelgänger in the other city.* > That's nice, but today you claim a correct prediction was not made yesterday, in light of the new knowledge you received today that enabled you to conclude that yesterday's prediction was wrong what should the Helsinki Man (if that's the person you think should be making the prediction) have said yesterday that would enable you to conclude that yesterday's prediction was correct? I would bet money you can generate bafflegab but you can't answer that question. > *The whole point is that there is no specific answer here.* > And that's because there was no specific question asked there. 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.
