On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:22 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> You confess not to read the pre-dogmatic theology. > I don't even know what "pre-dogmatic theology" means in Brunospeak and have no great interest in finding out. > *> Are you aware that after Justinian, in 529 ...* > I don't give a hoot in hell what happens after Justinian, in 529. > *the academy of Plato* .... > ... knew less science than one bright third grader today. > *You know you dislike both reading old text,* > That's because every minute I spend reading crap by a fossilized ancient Greek is a minute not spent reading a real book written by somebody who, unlike the Greeks, was not scientifically illiterate. > *> you still assume a god* > Yes I know Bruno, you've repeated that in nearly every post for at least the last 5 years. I'm really curious to know if you'll ever be able to break out of your infinite loop so you can invent some new insults but I can't figure out if you ever will or not because the Halting Problem has no solution. > > Primary matter, or primary physics is the idea that the fundamental > reality is the physical reality. > I don't know of any physicist who claims to have found fundamental reality or even something close to it, most would probably say such a thing does not even exist. Richard Feynman said: *"People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No I am not. I am just looking to find out more about the world. And if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law that explains everything so be it. That would be very nice discovery. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we just sick and tired of looking at the layers then that’s the way it is! But whatever way it comes out it’s nature, it’s there, and she’s going to come out the way she is. And therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn’t pre-decide what it is we are trying to do except to find out more about it."* > > Even if you're right and pure mathematics can produce matter (and I >> can't see any way it could) > > > > *I reassure you, nor do I.* > Then you have no reason to believe mathematics is more fundamental than physics. I can understand how physics could give birth to mathematics because physics can give birth to us and we need a good language to describe the workings of nature, but I don't see how it could go the other way. > > *But the sigma_1 arithmetical relation does emulate computations,* > They could if sigma_1 arithmetical relations existed, but there is no evidence that they do. A valid proof shows that a statement is grammatically correct in the language of mathematics but it does not prove that it exists. If you prove that every sentence in a Harry Potter book is grammatically correct in the language of English you have not proven that dragons exist. Dragons don't exist but the English word "dragons" does. >> it would still be necessary for mathematics to first produce matter >> before intelligence or consciousness could emerge. > > > > *Not if you can survive with a digital computer, * > A digital computer needs atoms to be arranged in a very particular way and it needs the ability to change and that requires energy. And both atoms and energy are physical. And please don't refer me to some book written in the language of mathematics that tells a story about something non-physical making calculations because I can refer you to a book by JK Rowling written in the language of English about dragons. Yes if you assume that mathematics is the ultimate reality my above analogy is invalid, but you can't assume what you're trying to prove, you can't use the assumption of being fundamental to prove it is fundamental. >>you can't even clearly state what the question was much less confirm that >> that the answer was correct. > > > > Because you deny the first person discourse. > This has nothing to do with me, it is a fact that even AFTER your "experiment" is over there is STILL no way for anyone or anything to know what one and only one city "you" ended up seeing. Not only is the answer unknown so is the question. >> Yes the H-guy does not exist today, but only if you define the H-guy as >> the man who was in Helsinki yesterday because today is not yesterday so >> today there is no way a man can be a man in Helsinki yesterday. Of course >> that would be a very very stupid was to define the H-guy, a much smarter >> definition would be the H-guy today is anybody who remembers being the >> H-guy yesterday. >> > > *> Which I used all the time.* > No Bruno, you don't use it all the time, if you did you wouldn't keep talking about *THE* one and only one first person experience the Helsinki man will end up having and the one and only one city *THE* one and only one Helsinki man ended up seeing. > *and each says “I survived in only one city and I realise I could not > have predicted which one”.* > No, each says "I realized the personal pronoun "I" can only be defined by looking into the past not the future because with a people duplicating machined 2 people can have a identical past but different futures. > *The answer is, concerning what I expect in the first person mode, that I > expect * > Expect? This has nothing to do with expectations because your thought "experiment " is so ill defined and nebulous that even after the damn thing is long over you STILL don't know what has already happened. Actually it's even worse than that, not only is the answer forever unknown you can't even state what the question is or was without personal pronouns with no unique referent. > > to bring coffee, and that it will be either in Washington, or in > Moscow, but I can be sure of which one. > Such is the folly that results in using common everyday language even in such a radically uncommon situation. A people duplicating machine means that 2 people can have identical histories but different futures, so to ask what one and only one city "I" will see after "I" walk out of the duplicating chamber is just a STUPID question because the the only way John Clark or anybody else has to define "I" is by using the past. if you did you wouldn't hesitate to tell me me but that can't be done >> without personal pronouns with no referent. > > > *> We agreed on them. * > No we don't agree, you don't even agree with yourself! You keep changing what "The Helsinki Man" actually means. Depending on how its defined "The Helsinki Man" will see no cities at all today (if "he" is the man who was in Helsinki yesterday) or he will see 2 cities (if "he" is a man who remembers being the Helsinki Man yesterday). > > As other have shown to you, you did use the same pronouns in > Everertt-QM, > I have a hunch Everett's idea is largely correct but if it isn't the problem will not be with the pronouns. Until Drexler style Nanotechnology is developed the personal pronoun "I" has a unique unambiguous definition in Everett's interpretation; "I" is the only chunk of matter in the observable universe that behaves in a johnkclarkian way and remembers being in Helsinki yesterday. After people duplicating machines are developed the grammatical rules on the use of personal pronouns will need to be modified. > > *we need to backtrack 1500 years in theology* > Well that's progress I suppose, its better than backtracking 2500 years to the brain dead ancient 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. 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.
