On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.* > I give metaphysics all the respect it deserves. > *The fact is that you seem to assume Mechanism and Materialism, and that > is inconsistent.* > If I knew what you mean by Mechanism and Materialism I'd know if I assume them or not, but, although you've given me 6.02*10^23 definitions of both you are unable to provide a single specific example of either, so it's all just words and I don't know what you mean. > *>>> 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.* > That is one of the great understatements of all time! Yes that wonderful post is indeed not easy to find, I think it must be in a safe deposit box at the First National Bank Of Atlantas. You've been singing the same song about the glory of that magical mystical post for the better part of a decade but nobody has ever actually seen it. > > *But we know that you have a problem with the most easy part of the > theory, (UDA step 3)* > Step 3 is not easy it's simple, but not simple in a good way. > > *Work out the step 3, and we can continue. * > Make step 3 less simple (aka less stupid) and we can continue. *> 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. * > I have no idea if I believe in what you call "physicalism" or not because I don't know what you mean by mechanism. You did give an example of a machine (which may or may not be the same as an example of mechanism you seem unsure), your example was SKK, or perhaps it was "SKK" you seem unsure, but I don't find either example to be particularly enlightening . > > *t**o say that a computation has to be primarily physical to “exist” > illustrate well enough that you believe in some sort of physicalism.* > I don't know what you mean by computation either. The example you gave was *SKKK* * KK(KK)* > * K* But you seem unsure and say maybe instead it should be: *"SKKK* * KK(KK)* > * K"* but I don't find either example to be particularly enlightening. And meaning no ad hominem but just stating a conclusion based on facts, that is why I think you quite literally don't know what you are talking about. > *> I think you play dumb.* > I think you don't think. > >> 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,* > You haven't given ANY details about how an ASCII sequence by itself can make a calculation because you don't know any details, if you did you'd be the richest most powerful man who ever lived. In fact you wouldn't be a man you'd be a God. > > *because it is long an hideous, and well done in all textbook in > theoretical computer science or mathematical logic.* > And those theoretical computer science and mathematical textbooks would be Gods too. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2k6cqp5tn2zikMswXdeD5s8PkLMXraVwo3G_OEmLCR4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
