> On 15 Jun 2019, at 15:52, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
If you did, you would more clearly make precise that you assume a physical reality. I do not. I am agnostic, and show that if we assume Mechanism, then such a physical reality has no sense. The belief in a God or in a Universe is logically incompatible with the assumption of Mechanism. That is what I have shown and exploited. > > The fact is that you seem to assume Mechanism and Materialism, and that is > inconsistent. > > If I knew what you mean by Mechanism Mechanism is the assumption that we can survive a digital brain transplant operation copying, at *some*level of description, my brain or body (including a finite part of the environment) in the clinical usual sense. It is the digital version of Descartes' Mechanism. > and Materialism Materialism is the assumption that there is a physical universe irreducible to something non physical. Materialism/physicalism is the assumption that physics is the fundamental science. It is not an assumption in physics, but in metaphysics. It is the belief in the so called second God of Aristotle: a primitively material universe. > 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. There are no example. Those are assumption. Oh, you mean no examples of “a mechanism”? I gave infinitely many of them, all the “i” in the phi_i gives example of mechanism, if you know what the phi_i represents. > > >>> 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. You are the one who has systematically recast it with less precision. When the precision are added you confirmed that you understand the point, but that your niece could have find it, and I agree with you, as it is indeed very easy. It is but one step in a longer reasoning. > > > 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. YD + CT You understand, given that you have already given 80,000 dollars to a doctor. You are a mechanist practitioners. > You did give an example of a machine (which may or may not be the same as an > example of mechanism you seem unsure), I use only the term “digital machine”. I keep the term “Mechanism” for the metaphysical/theological assumption/theory. > your example was SKK, or perhaps it was "SKK" you seem unsure, No? I have never been unsure. You make this up. It is SKK. Not “SKK”. > but I don't find either example to be particularly enlightening . Then take the example with the coffee bar machine. Any programs in any programming language provide an illustration. You might have missed some of my earlier post, but this is explained in all books on the subject. > > > to 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” On the contrary, I make clear that SKKK KK(KK° K Is the computation, and that the same with the quote is not. > > 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. It is coherent with your conventionalist interpretation of math as a language. This makes me thing you don’t understand mathematics. You talk like someone who define reality by “physical reality”, without understanding that this was an idea by Aristotle, in contradiction with Pythagorus and Plato. > > > 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, Which one? > 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. You talk like if the discovery of computation in arithmetic would lead automatically to their implementation in some physical reality. As Turing illustrated, to get money from this, you need to implement the computer in the physical reality. That is obvious. But that would not have been possible without the discovery made by Tiuring and others of the purely mathematical (even arithmetical) notion of computation. The detailed discovery, but still implicit, is already in Gödel’s original paper. Gödel will miss the Church’s thesis, and only grasp it, and accept it, after five years, in 1936. > > > 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. The arithmetical reality becomes “God”, indeed. But the theories, and the books, provide just finite approximations. The theories and books “live" in arithmetic,or in the arithmetical phenomenologies, and they already know that they miss almost the whole truth (by incompleteness that they can prove about themselves). 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/CAJPayv2k6cqp5tn2zikMswXdeD5s8PkLMXraVwo3G_OEmLCR4Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2k6cqp5tn2zikMswXdeD5s8PkLMXraVwo3G_OEmLCR4Q%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/0C18E412-479D-4A97-A0A0-708ABB37FAF7%40ulb.ac.be.
