On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:31 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> definitions can't compute, not even official definitions. Only physical >> machines can compute. and yet about every third word in your posts about >> the nature of computing is "definition", "theory" or "proof" even though >> none of those things can compute. > > > *> But I did try to explain you that you are confusing “definition”, > “theory”” or “proof”, which are syntactical finite object with what they > represent (in the intended model).* > It would not matter even if I did confuse them because "the intended model" can't compute any better than “definition”, “theory”” or “proof” can. Only a Physical Turing Machine can make a calculation that is NOT a metaphysical phantom calculation and can actually *do* things, like mine Bitcoins. *> To sum up, “2+2=4” does not compute, but the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is > true,* > True? Without computation "2+2=4 is true" would not be a fact and it would be neither true or false, it would be meaningless gibberish; and only a Physical Turing Machine can make a calculation. > >> Models can't compute. > > *> It provides the meaning of “compute”,* > Turing Machines give meaning to "compute" and they can do something FAR more profound than give a definition, they can provide an example. >> Arithmetic, elementary or otherwise, can't compute. > > > *The Arithmetical reality (the one that logician often represents by an > infinite structured set in (intuitive or formal) set theory) cannot > compute, nor can a physical universe,* > Then I guess NOTHING can compute, but then it's hard to figure out how INTEL became a multi bullion dollar company by figuring out how to get the element silicon to compute. > *for one simple reason. We can’t give inputs or output. By definition.* > I have no idea what, if anything, you mean by that and it's not worth trying to figure out because definitions can't compute. *> But those type of realities can still dovetail on all computations. > Computer science is somehow 0-dimensional. * > And the bafflegab continues. >> But a Physical Turing Machines can *do* arithmetic, and nobody has ever >> found anything else that can. > > > *> Nobody has found a non physical machine to emulate a physical machine, > indeed, we cannot make energy from natural numbers alone.* > So at last you agree to something I've been saying for years, physics can do things mathematics can't. > *But with the mechanist hypothesis, a computation* [...] > A hypothesis can't compute. > *> It is just that I have shown that you cannot possiblyI try only to > show that you are using two assumptions which, when taken together, leads > to a contradiction. Those are the assumption of Digital Mechanism, and the > assumption of physicalism/materialism.* > John Clark will now make another assumption, John Clark assumes the above is related to Bruno's notorious "proof", the one with a personal pronoun duplicating machine, and wall to wall personal pronouns, and not a single clear referent in the entire thing, and the bizarre assumption that accurately predicting the future has something to do with the sense of self. >> Except for yourself any conclusion you make about the consciousness or >> lack of consciousness of ANYTHING is based on an assumption, and it's an >> assumption that has zero evidence in favor of it and zero evidence against >> it. And there is zero chance of that situation ever changing. That's >> why, in dramatic contrast to intelligence theories, consciousness theories >> are so easy to come up with, and it's why they are so completely useless. > > > *> I only assume Mechanism. The YD + CT. CT assumes* [...] > You consistently ignore IHA. 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv35K71EFYsDQSCwW9Zv%3DWvodBnMDnqKfFkFGaTwa_%2BnPg%40mail.gmail.com.
