> On 11 Jun 2019, at 13:33, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:06 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>> with Mechanism [...] > > >> Bruno, you use that word a lot, and I mean a LOT, but I'm still not sure > >> what you mean. I don't want you to give me your definition I want you to > >> give me examples of what you think it is and what you think it is not. > >> Let's start with these, no need for long explanations, a simple yes or no > >> will do and will give me an idea of what you're talking about: > Is a cuckoo clock a mechanism? > > > I have never use the expression “a mechanism”. > > That is no doubt part of the problem. Instead of yet another long winded > vague metaphysical definition give me some examples of mechanism so I know > what the hell you're talking about. Start by answering my simple clear yes or > no questions.
I use “mechanism” as a short cut for “YD + CT” (yes doctor and the Church-Turing hypothesis). I use “digital machine” or “program” or “number” or “word” for what you might mean by Mechanism. > > > A cuckoo clock is an informal not well defined notion, because it is > > unclear what you mean by this > > Oh for christ sake! You don't know what I mean by cuckoo clock?? A physical cuckoo clock is an informal poorly defined notion. Should we count the population of bacteria living in that clock, should we take into account the metal-fatigue? It is a bunch of singularities in a quantum field? Or do you define a cuckoo clock by anything capable of measuring some digital time? In the last case, the successor function in arithmetic is already a cuckoo clock. > > > I would need to define “a mechanism”, > > You're asking me?! You're the one who constantly uses the word not me, No. You will not find the expression “a mechanism” in any of my post. I keep “mechanism” for “YD + CT”, and use “digital machine” or “code” or “programs” for the digital sort of “mechanism”. > I know what I mean by it but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, you > mean. A perfect definition of digital machine is anything capable of being Turing-emulated by a combinator, or by the universal diophantine polynomial, etc. > And by dodging my simple crystal clear question you have confirmed my > suspicion that you don't mean anything by it. That does not follow from what you say, which is also very vague. I don’t see any point made here. > > >> Is a roulette wheel a mechanism? Is a Tritium atom with a half life of > >> 12.32 years a mechanism? Is the multiplication table a mechanism? > > > If you define them in such a way that they are Turing emulable, then they > > are “mechanism”, > > How on earth is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years Turing > emulable? With Mechanism, I have already ex^plained why no piece of matter is ever Turing emulable. You question depends on your metaphysical assumption, but with mechanism, the apparent primitive matter is not Turing emulable. > > > but I use the term “programs” or “digital machine” instead. > > I don't care what bafflegab you like to use, you talk about mechanism > constantly I talk on “Mechanism”, the assumption that we can survive through a physical digital body, with a generalised sense of body, as explained in my posts and papers. > and your definitions are useless ? > so I'm trying to figure out what you mean by way of example, but you are > unable to answer a simple clear question with a simple yes or no answer, and > the excuse for your inability is comically ridiculous. You claim you don't > know what a cuckoo clock is! See the thread on the combinators, where I gave tuns of examples of machines and computations. > > > By “Mechanism” I have always mean [...] > > Baloney. You don't always mean anything by it! I just gave specific examples > where you don’t. No. You make the assumption of both Indexical Digital Mechanism, and then talk about a cuckoo clock like if that was a well determined object. That has been shown invalid. > If you want to prove me wrong then in your next post in response to this > don't use the word "definition" anywhere in it and instead convey your > meaning (assuming you have one) by means of example. Here is a machine SKK Here is a computation SKKK KK(KK) K See the thread “combinators” for more on this. Or see my thread on Turing machine, of coffee-bar machines, etc. > > > > “the mechanist hypothesis” which is the conjunction of “Yes doctor” (= my > > consciousness is invariant for some digital functional substitution) + the > > Church-Turing thesis. > > Don't talk to me about the Church-Turing thesis until you figure our what a > cuckoo clock is. I don’t know what a cuckoo clock is. You tell me. We cannot invoke such things, especially if you meant some primary physical object, which has not been assumed in my posts. Bruno > > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0-8n428ZUTsD_fPySWaM1xseQMM1wPB_yQtAHJaZOeQQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0-8n428ZUTsD_fPySWaM1xseQMM1wPB_yQtAHJaZOeQQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85CB2268-D5A8-4CFF-83A5-1F20A3DAFE9B%40ulb.ac.be.
