On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:54 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> 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,* > Yes a universal digital machine can add and multiply, and a universal digital machine just like any machine is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > *Second, the expression “physics can do” is so terribly vague that I > can interpret it it many different ways,* > The statement "physics can do X" may be vague in the Brunospeak language but it isn't in the English language . > *But I explicitly do not postulate physics*. > I know for a fact that is untrue. You postulate physics every time you wish to get to the outer side but refuse to step off the curb into the street if you judge that a physical car moving at its current physical speed will intersect with your physical body before you have time to get to the other side. And you are not the only one, for the last 500 million years without exception every single one of your ancestors has postulated physics or you wouldn't be here today; I'm sure some animals ignored physics but they left no descendants. > > Without physics no statement in arithmetic would be true 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 * > No theory was involved. People observed that whenever they added two physical things to two more physical things they always got a invariant quantity, four physical things. People then used inductive reasoning to conclude this would always be true even when they are not observed, and at least until the discovery of quantum mechanics this has all worked out fine. But if you wait long enough induction will always let you down. > > *you need to explain how an arithmetical John Clark is not conscious,* > I was talking about intelligence, I have not proposed any consciousness theory not because it is hard but because it is easy. A theory must fit the facts and it's easy to do that with consciousness because there are no facts about it to fit except that I John Clark am conscious. *> How does you God,* [...] > And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because I believe in the value of induction and you've never said anything intelagent after that. >> 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?* > Distinguish? The arithmetical John Clark can't *do* any distinguishing, arithmetical John Clark can't *do* anything at all because doing involves change and arithmetic never changes, but matter that obeys the laws of physics does. *> You just repeat your credo, without providing explanations or > justifications. You seem to imbue a lot of magic in your notion of matter.* > If the ability to change by interacting with time and space is magic then yes, matter has a certain magic that numbers lack. >> 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.* > I don't have to open my computer for it to make a calculation, why do I have to open a textbook for it to make a calculation? > > *Arithmetic implement also the computation with oracle.* > It the computations performed by a mathematical oracle are real then so is the magic performed by Harry potter. > >> 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*. > Maybe so but I'm not sure because I don't know what the definition of "mechanism" is in Brunospeak, although I have a feeling it would contain words like "primitive" and "fundamental" which seem pretty irrelevant on a discussion about mind. >> . 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 explained how I know that immediately after the comma: "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.* > Well duh, change is always relative to something. In physics 2 object change their orientation in space with time, but the change between 2 and 3 is always one everywhere. Physical stuff changes, mathematical stuff doesn't, And mind needs change. *> I am waiting for your explanation, avoiding terms like "real”, of why > the arithmetical John Clark are zombies.* > There is only one thing I know for certain about zombies, I am not one; other than that my ignorance on that subject is total. 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/CAJPayv1YODVEDo-Fk15Q9cQVa2UX0KJOp_bRWmSvphcSKPTd_g%40mail.gmail.com.
