> On 17 Mar 2019, at 21:37, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:22 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto: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
It is the science theory, before it has been stolen by the state (in occident this occurred in 529). In the Middle-East, this occurred (notably) in 1248, when Al Ghazali “won” its dispute with Averroes. In both case, this has led to obscurantism. > > > Are you aware that after Justinian, in 529 ... > > I don't give a hoot in hell what happens after Justinian, in 529. But if you would be aware of all this, you would be able to distinguish a science, and what humans can do with a science when they bring the use of authoritative argument in there. That happened with Genetics in the ex-USSR. > > > the academy of Plato .... > > ... knew less science than one bright third grader today. You told me you did not have study it. Are you just repeating stuff? > > > 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. Sorry, but you are the one invoking a material reality, without evidence. Then you just don’t look neither at the ancient literature, nor to the contemporary studies, showing such commitment is incompatible with mechanism, or with the empirical facts. > > > 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. But physics does not even aboard the question. Why should they? > 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.” Feynman just say that he does not do metaphysics. We knew. > > > 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. This does not follow, given that if mathematics does not produce matter, once we accept Church-Turing thesis, it is a theorem of set theory that the arithmetic realities (the models of RA) emulates all computations. > 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. You beg again the question. You invoke your god. You see, you did it again. Can you give just one evidence for it? Or you confuse Matter, which exist of course, and primary matter, the god of Aristotle and the the Christians’ creation. Sorry, but that is not my religion, and beside, when doing science, we cannot invoke any ontological commitment. > 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. 2+2 = 5 is grammatically correct in arithmetic, but that has nothing to do with ^provability or with truth. > > >> 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 Not at all. A physical computer needs some physical objects, but the whole point of the discovery of the universal machine, is that they are not physical machine. > 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. I did not. > > >>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 For anyone? Then you deny consciousness to both copies. Basically, you say that we die in the teleportation experience, but then you can no more accept the digital physical brain. > 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. “The” alludes to the first person experience. Both guy feel to be the only one, unless you introduce telepathy. You just deny the experiences of both copies. They both feel “I see only one city”. > > > 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. Both copies knows very well what happened. They pushed on a button, and they got a results that they understand was not predictable with certainty. You used that in QM-without-collapse. > 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. “I” is an indexical, like now. But this is handled mathematically with the second recursion theorem of Kleene, in all details in my publication, and on this list. The thought experiment makes this clear for most non-mathematicians, and the mathematicians who dislike tout experience, just consult the math part. There is nothing controversial here. > > 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. No. We know that both are right, by Mechanism, in saying “I was in Helsinki, yesterday, and now I am still in only one city”. > > 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). The Helsinki man becomes the W guy and the M guy, so both are the Helsinki man, but their consciousness, similar in Helsinki, have differentiated, and, for reason of numerical identity, they know which one they could have become was not predictible. You play with words to deny a very simple facts, which has not been criticised by anyone, except you (and some people a long time ago, but got the point since). It is us, who do not understand you prose, my dear fellow. Bruno > > > 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 > <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.
