> On 8 Aug 2019, at 15:55, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:19 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > Yes, everybody can find prime numbers because everyBODY has a body made if > > matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > That makes a human body able to find some prime number, but the prime > > number notion is not transformed into a physical notion through this. > > Without the notion of multiplication and division "a prime number" would have > no meaning, and multiplication and division is something ONLY physics can do.
First that is false. Any universal digital machine can add and multiply, and they do that in the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality. Second, the expression “physics can do” is so terribly vague that I can interpret it it many different ways, some true, some false. What is plausible is that some subset of the physical laws can implement some digital machine (including the universal one). But I explicitly do not postulate physics. Only x + 0 = x, etc. Th reason is that I search of an explanation of where physics come from, and I avoid to postulate anything physical to avoid circularity and infinite regression. > > > Same with computation. > > Yep. > > > All the proposition making some computation into arithmetical existence are > > true, independently of the laws of physics, > > Without physics no statement in arithmetic would be true Hmm mathematician disagree with this. It is only a statement in your particular materialist philosophy, and the point is that this cannot be true when we assume the digital mechanist hypothesis. > and none would be false either, they would just be meaningless squiqles. If that is true, 2+2=4 would be a theorem in some physical theory which would not assume arithmetic. Show it. > > > like the arithmetical proposition making 17 into a prime number, do not > > depends on human existence. > > It doesn't depend on humans but it does depend on matter and the laws of > physics as that is the only thing that can perform a calculation, Relatively to you, but that happens in arithmetic. Or, as I have said already many times, you need to explain how an arithmetical John Clark is not conscious, despite telling me exactly what you tell me now. How does you God, or Ontological Commitment, distinguish between the same computation, when processed on different Turing universal system. Bruce can do that, by invoking a non mechanist theory of mind. You can’t, because you assume Mechanism, and I have shown that to be impossible (or meaningless). > and without computation nothing could be said about 17 being prime, in fact > nothing could be said about the number 17 at all because it would be > meaningless gibberish. > > > Insects have used the primality of 13 and 17 well before human did > > mathematics, for example. > > Insects are made of matter and they obey the laws of physics. > > >>> A computation can be realised physically, but also arithmetically, as > >>> shown in all elementary textbook. > > >> Oh god here we go again!! Here we go with elementary textbooks making > >> physically realizable calculations Not making. Just explaining. > > > Not at all. The elementary textbook just explain in detail that the notion > > of computation is available in arithmetic, > > Explanations are a human invention that benefit only them, explanations can > not compute. Yes, so look at the explanation. Here you just change the level of discussion by straw man remarks. > > > You will need physical laws only to implement some computation physically; > > Translation from the original bafflegab: You only need physical laws if you > want something more than a pretend toy calculation. > > >> When it comes to discerning the difference between a real calculation and > >> ridiculous phantom calculations your confusion is epic. > > > Use of “real” is invalid here. > > I don't know how to be clearer or more unambiguous. As I've said more than > once, a real calculation can be used to buy a Bitcoin but your pretend > phantom calculations lack that property. How can the arithmetical John Clark distinguish between an arithmetical bitcoin and a physical bitcoin? You just repeat your credo, without providing explanations or justifications. You seem to imbue a lot of magic in your notion of matter. > >>> a computation is not the same as a description of computation, > > >> I know, that was my point. The Mathematical language can describe a > >> calculation but it can not make a calculation anymore than the English > >> language can produce a flesh and blood cat from the letters C, A and T. > > > Yes, but you cannot deduce from this that a mathematical structure cannot > > emulate a computation. > > Speak for yourself. Maybe you lack the ability to deduce the fact that a non > physical thing can't emulate a computer or emulate anything else but I'm > smart enough to have figured it out; and I'm not bragging because it takes > very little brain power to figure it out. A point which is simply contradict by the facts. The only problem is that you don’t open the textbook. > > > Indeed, all models of the arithmetical theories emulate, in the precise > > sense of Church, Turing and Co. > > Models can't compute and neither can theories, only Physical Turing Machines > can compute. > > > A mathematical structure is not to be confused with the language describing > > that mathematical structure. > > Mathematical structures can't compute, only Physical Turing Machines can > compute. > > > The arithmetical truth os independent of all theories build to explore it. > > I agree, so stop talking about theories making calculations. But they do, in the precise sense which has been given. And that is used when we show that the physical reality can also do computation, by implementing those universal numbers, which computes all by themselves in arithmetic, indeed, the appearance of the physical reality is explained through that arithmetical reality (different from a theory of arithmetic, notice). > > >> And the ONLY way to make a calculation is with matter that obeys the laws > >> of physics. > > > That is the only way to make a physical computation. > > Without physics all you've got is pretend toy calculations, and they're just > silly. Arithmetic implement also the computation with oracle. That is an open problem in the physical reality (and virtually senseless, as if we are machine, we cannot recognise in a finite time a machine with oracle with a sufficiently complex machine without oracle). But it is a theorem in math that many portion of the arithmetical truth computes much more than the universal Turing machine. That invalidate your point that only a physical reality compute. Besides, I don’t postulate physics. Simply. > > >> the matter must be organized in certain specific ways to make a > >> calculation, if you organize it in the form of a logic textbook it won't > >> work, if you organize it in the form of a Silicon Microprocessor it will. > > > But the computation exists in arithmetic, independently of its emulation by > > a physical processor, like we can be sure that there is a prime number > > bigger than 10^(10^1000), independently of the fact that we might perhaps > > never find it. > > It has been proven that the truth or falsehood of the Continuum hypothesis > makes no difference to our current set theory; and in a similar way if the > entire multiverse lacks the resources to calculate a prime number bigger than > 10^(10^1000), and it probably does, then the existence or nonexistence of > that enormous number has nothing to do with reality. With your conception of reality, which is inconsistent with mechanism. > > >> What you need to do now is write "x -> s(x)" on a postcard and mail it to > >> INTEL, I'm sure they will be very grateful to you for revolutionizing > >> their industry. > > > Of course, they already know, and use this all the time. It is a primitive > > of all assembly language. > > There is nothing more useless than an assembly language program and no > hardware to run it on. > > > you cannot know if you are not also the product of some computation in > > arithmetic > > I and my entire world might be a simulation, but if so I am NOT the product > of a computation in arithmetic, How do you know? > I am the product of a computation made in a Physical Turing Machine because > matter that obeys the laws of physics can change but arithmetic lacks that > ability and you can't have computation without change. Even in many physical theories, like GR, change is relative to the subject. That is of course the case in the arithmetical reality. It is statical, out of the category of time and space, but dynamical from the relative points off view of the person associate to the partial computable number relations. I am waiting for your explanation, avoiding terms like "real”, of why the arithmetical John Clark are zombies. How does matter adds the consciousness, and the brain still be Turing emulable? 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 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/CAJPayv3Jaddnaae8uhJorgphj5jpuwAU2Eqz%3D1i%2Bb59ntmDRZQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Jaddnaae8uhJorgphj5jpuwAU2Eqz%3D1i%2Bb59ntmDRZQ%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/1B04A175-6C7D-4E62-A071-9846675F291F%40ulb.ac.be.
