On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 7:53:34 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >
*I have to agree with Clark here. I think Bruno should just define some of his terms, like mechanism, materialism, computable or Turing computable, and maybe we can have a useful discussion. You, Bruno, can't just rely on some very post not easily found as sufficient. Play it again Sam! AG* > > >> *>>> 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/160772c2-4364-4435-9def-b5bec0879c5c%40googlegroups.com.
