> On 14 Jun 2019, at 15:55, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:52 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > In (serious) metaphysics, a word like “cuckoo clock” is not well defined. > > Then it is quite clear that serious metaphysics is not very serious. Bozo > metaphysics would be a better term.
That shows how much you take metaphysics seriously. It is the ABC in (serious) philosophy that any mundane terms cannot be used in a theory. People use traditionally the notion of chair to illustrate this (instead of cuckoo clock). > > > If by cuckoo clock you mean the physical object [...] > > By cuckoo clock I mean the thing that I'm pointing at that is hanging on the > wall right there under your nose. Like the one I saw in lay dream this night? Your “definition” is OK FAPP. But it hides all interesting questions from a metaphysical standpoint. > > > then my answer is NO. > > Then whenever you hit the keys on your computer in a certain order and as a > result "mechanism" appears on my computer's screen that ASCII sequence > conveys no information to me whatsoever. > > >> Is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years a mechanism? > > > Same answer as above, > > By the way, no Turing Machine can determine if a particular Tritium atom will > decay in the next 12.32 years, the best it can do is give you the odds. To me > that indicates physics is in the drivers seat that determines the nature of > the world, mathematics is just a language that tries to describe it. Maybe, but the fact that none of the three quantum logics that the universal numbers suggest for physics are confirmed (up to now), + the fact that physicalism eliminates consciousness support more mechanism than the unknown non-computationalist theory of Lind that such an hypothesis makes obligatory. > > > The physical object “cuckoo clock” is not a being, with Digital Mechanism. > > A cuckoo clock is not a being? I agree but what does that have to do with the > price of tea in China? > > >> Oh for christ sake, then EVERYTHING is a informal poorly defined notion. > >> And actually that would be OK because fundamentally definitions are not > >> important in language, examples are. > > > For practical application you are right. But when we assume mechanism and > > sinus metaphysics, the “obvious” is no more obvious. > > Then the obvious thing to do is not to assume "sinus metaphysics", whatever > the hell that is. The fact is that you seem to assume Mechanism and Materialism, and that is inconsistent. > > > But I made clear that “Mechanism” is the act of faith of saying yes to a > > doctor who propose a digital physical body/brain. > > That is not an act of faith, there is hard physical evidence to think it may > be true. Faith is when we pass from the finite number of evidence to an axiom/assumption/belief in a theory. > We don't know exactly how matter produce our individual consciousness but we > do know it can't be by looking at a hydrogen atom and seeing our name > scratched on it because science can see no difference between one hydrogen > atom and another. > > > you can search for my posts where I have explained this already, perhaps > > before you were participating on this list. > > Oh we're back to that are we. For at least 5 years and probably closer to 10 > you've been telling me about this wonderful post of yours written a long time > ago in a galaxy far far away that brilliantly answers all my objections to > your philosophy. The trouble is I've never seen that post and I don't know > anybody who has even claimed to have seen it. I do however know somebody who > has claimed to have seen Bigfoot. Well, the post are there, but not easy to find. I suggest you read by papers. But we know that you have a problem with the most easy part of the theory, (UDA step 3) and you have never succeeded in convincing anyone what was the problem, as you have systematically retrieve the precision I made in your comment. Work out the step 3, and we can continue. > > >> you are unable to provide a single specific example of something that has > >> that quality or single specific example of something that does not. And > >> that means you literally don't know what you're talking about. > > > Avoid those ad hominem comment. > > It's not ad hominem it's a factual observation. If somebody is unable to give > even one specific example of what they are talking about then they LITERALLY > don't know what they are talking about. Yes, but I gave the example, and I made a complete ten long post thread on the combinators to illustrate the technical details. > > > you have exemplify that you are a believer in primary matter or physicalism, > > I have no idea if I believe in primary matter and physicalism or not because > you've never made it clear what you mean by the terms. The fact that you invoke a physical existing universe to rebute some of the consequence of mechanism is enough to deduce that you believe in physicalism. To say that a computation has to be primarily physical to “exist” illustrate well enough that you believe in some sort of physicalism. > > >> > Here is a machine > SKK > Here is a computation > SKKK > KK(KK) > K > > > I see. So 3 squiggles is called a "machine" and 11 squiggles is called a > > "computation”. > > > Here you confuse SKK with “SKK”. > > I see. So 5 squiggles are called a "machine" not 3 as previously stated. Are > 11 squiggles still called a "computation”? You seem to avoid understanding wilfully. Or you have not understood the difference between the fact that one added to one gives two and some strings of symbols. I think you play dumb. > > > We implement a function from N to N by putting the input in the register 1, > > and we ask that the output is put also in register 1. If the function has > > more than one argument, we put the argument in the register 1, and 2, etc. > > You confuse register and "register". One is an electronic or mechanical > device that obeys the laws of physics and the other is an ASCII sequence. I have explained how a register machine can be implemented in arithmetic. I have not given all details, because it is long an hideous, and well done in all textbook in theoretical computer science or mathematical logic. > > > Is a cuckoo clock a mechanism? > > > With the precision I have added above, the answer is NO. > > > Is a roulette wheel a mechanism? > > > NO. > > > Is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years a mechanism? > > > NO. > > > Is the multiplication table a mechanism? > > > NO. > > And yet SKK (or maybe it was "SKK") IS a mechanism! Yes, it is the program which computes the identity function. > Well, I still have no idea what you mean by mechanism I feel sorry for you. > but after reading in the above all the things it is not I have to conclude > that whatever you mean by the word it can't be of any use to anyone for > anything. It is used all the time by all computer scientist and user. It is your Aristotelian apparent prejudice that things needs to be physical to be real which obscures your mind, I think. A mechanism, or better a machine, is just a program, or a number with some intensional interpretation. It is the object study of mathematical logic and computer science, and those notion are neutral in metaphysics. It does not assume more than very elementary arithmetic. 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/CAJPayv2iAcoQKUT7MSmppXuHCuB5QC4es2xVYpMaT4-cZCVzpA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2iAcoQKUT7MSmppXuHCuB5QC4es2xVYpMaT4-cZCVzpA%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/4571BEF6-369B-4539-9E75-9C958318E2ED%40ulb.ac.be.
