> On 23 Jul 2019, at 17:57, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >>> Which World? > > >>The only one I know for a fact to exist. > > > Nobody can know that a world exist. > > Does anybody know what "exists" means?
Perhaps we don’t, and that is why I ask people to formalise their idea in first order logic, so we can move forward without any metaphysical baggage. > > > Of course, we all agree that some reality has to exist, > > And everybody experiences a world Everybody experiences consciousness, but "experiencing a world” is non sensical. You can experience the appearance of a world, and that does not prove its existence, as the dreams illustrates. > so that world exists, that is if the word "exists" has any meaning. That is why the theology of the universal number is handy: it clearly assumes a very simple ontological existence, in which only 0, s(0), … exists, and it provides 7 different other sense of existence, which are phenomenological, and justified by mathematical logic (mainly Löb’s theorem, Solovay theorems). ExP(x) = ontological existence. []Ex[]P(x) with the seven “[]” given by the modes of the selves, provides all the phenomenological existence, and we get a common language to build assertions mixing them in a proper way. > And don't talk to me about illusion because illusions exist. Illusions exists, but usually, the object of the illusion does not. > > >> Yes, and a damn fine argument that is too. Another name for it is "The > >> Scientific Method" which has worked out rather well for us in the past. > > > Unfortunately the use of the knocking table argument has been debunked > > already by Plato > > And even if I knew nothing else that would immediately tell me that Plato's > debunking had itself been debunked sometime in the last 500 years because > Plato, just like the other ancient Greek philosophers, didn't know the > difference between their ass and a hole in the ground. > > >> Reasoning is entirely dependent on a brain made of matter that obeys the > >> laws of physics. > > > Assuming primitive matter. > > Oh for god's sake, what does that have to do with it?! The brain can think > but it's certainly not primitive matter, it's made of neurons. And neurons > are not primitive matter, they're made of organic molecules. And organic > molecules are not primitive matter, they're made of atoms. And atoms are not > primitive matter, they're made of subatomic particles. And subatomic > particles are not primitive matter, they're made of quarks and gluons. > > And quarks and gluons may or may not be primitive matter nobody knows, but > for the purposes of our discussion it doesn't matter (pun intended) because > whatever else they may be we know one thing for sure, they can't think, they > display as much intelligent behavior as a sack full of doorknobs. No problem, but with mechanism, we can go further and say that the quarks and gluons are not primate matter, because they are invariant for the all universal numbers. > > >>> observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set > >>> of them. > > >> Mathematical relations between what? > > Numbers and set of numbers. > > Rather like the relative literary relationship between a set of characters in > a Harry Potter novel. If that was the case, we would not promise a million of dollars to solve the arithmetical Riemann hypothesis, or the twin conjectures. There is no unreasonable applications of Harry Potter novel in physics, for another exemple (an unreasonable applications of math entirely obvious when we postulate mechanism, btw). > > > Nobody knows for a fat that a material world exist, even the arithmetical > > world. > > Meaning needs contrast. If nothing exists Nobody says that nothing exists. Everyone knows that his/her consciousness exists. The doubt is on the notion of world, or of any semantic large enough to encompass us. In that case, we can explain why we cannot prove the existence of such a world, as this would makes us into inconsistent universal machine. > then "exists" means the same thing that "Klogknee" does, absolutely nothing. > So the word needs to be anchored at some point and nobody on this list, or > anyplace else, has proposed a better place than the physical world we know to > exist to anchor and calibrate the word. > > >> you've got the mathematical equivalent of a Harry Potter novel. > > > Nonsense. > > You've been using that one word as your only rebuttal quite a lot lately, if > you're not doing it just because you can't think of anything else to say then > please elaborate. > > > In the post 529 christian theology [...] > > You just never stop with that crap! Bruno, lots of interesting things have > happened since 529. And none of them involved theology. Indeed. But only because those who dare to do it where banished, exiled burn alive, persecuted, mocked, differed, etc. The result; some believe that science has prove the existence of a material world, when of course science is ontologically neutral all the time, even when doing theology or metaphysics. It is the mark of the con man to asserts that they know what “really exist”. >> >>>> The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if >> >>>> something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with >> >>>> the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't >> >>>> work. >> >> >>> How do you know that? > > >>Inductive reasoning, the same way people know most things. > > > That is good for all FAPP, but non sensical when doing metaphysics > > So I have to choose either Inductive reasoning or metaphysics. That does not follow at all. You need only to do metaphysics with the inductive (and deceptive) usually method, and test the results, etc. > Well that's a no-brainer if there ever was one! I choose Inductive reasoning > because it's even more important than deductive reasoning. > > > with the scientific attitude. > > Bruno, are you trying to tell me with a straight face that the scientific > method doesn't involve Inductive reasoning? No. > > > Typically, induce reasoning is not able to make a statement true. That is > > very elementary epistemology. > > That's why science can never say theory X is absolutely true, but it can say > theory X is less untrue than theory Y; sometimes they can even say it's > astronomically less but they can never say infinitely less. Yes, and we can say that (weak) materialism is false, in all sound mechanist theory of the mind. > > > The only implementation of Turing machine, in their precise mathematical > > sense, are in the classroom. > > BULLSHIT. That's like saying the only implementation of a diesel engine is in > an engineering classroom teaching thermodynamics. A physical hurricane is > more profound than a computer model of one and a physical Turing Machine is > more profound than a mathematical description of one in a textbook. But the *apparent* existence of a physical Turing machine is explained in pure arithmetic, though the fact that the arithmetical truth (independently of its many description). Assuming primitive physical Turing machine does NOT explains even just the appearance of physical Tiring machine, still less of fundamentally existing one. You need to provide a role too your Matter in consciousness, and - either that role is Turing emulable, but then it is emulated in arithmetic already, - or it is not Turing emulable, but then you can’t say “yes” to the digitalist doctor. > > >>> Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and > >>> again. > > >>Means? Meaning requires intelligence, before Evolution invented brains > >>things happened and did stuff but nothing meant anything. Humans are in the > >>meaning conferring business not rocks, we can give meaning to a rock but a > >>rock can't give meaning to us. I think you're the one that's very confused. > > > Distracting comment unrelated to the point. > > Unrelated? You're the one who mentioned "means". You're the one who keeps > talking about the difference between a ASCII sequence and what that ASCII > sequence "means". > > > When you have a Turing universal machinery, you have a Turing machine, > > You don't unless the machine is made of matter and isn't just printed on the > pages of a textbook. “Printed in a textbook” is different from “emulated in the model of arithmetic”. > > > I guess you mean “a real Turing machine”, > > I mean a Physical Turing Machine. > > > but invoking “real” is not better than invoking God > > That would be true if God could make calculations but there is precisely zero > evidence He can even add 2+2, Which God? > however there is overwhelming evidence that a Physical Turing Machine can. Assuming that exists, but then you can’t say “yes” to the mechanist doctor. Bruno > Therefore a Physical Turing Machine is astronomically less unreal than God. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1U9ewmt73zJrPyX4Mk%3Dxcad3S87DxhpvM2PrE86Ck73Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1U9ewmt73zJrPyX4Mk%3Dxcad3S87DxhpvM2PrE86Ck73Q%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FD0FA5E0-31CF-4B9E-A2F2-E1624E513AD9%40ulb.ac.be.
