On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 7:00 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> a physicists can measure a voltage but he can't measure a pure number. > > *> He can only measure a pure number. * > How can a physicist measure the number 7? Even if he found a way what would be the point when he already knows the answer, if 7 is not equal to 7 what is it equal to? > *> Then he can interpret it in some metaphysics.* > He can measure a physical quantity and describe what he found with the help of numbers. >> I googled "universal number" and all I got was stuff about numerology > and the way dentist refer to specific teeth. > > *> That says something about google, perhaps.* > I think not, Bing doesn't know what you're talking about either. The problem is that like me neither Google or Bing knows Brunocpeak. >> Having a FORTRAN interpreter is necessary but not sufficient to obtain > meaning, and the same thing could be said of a Physical Turing machine. > Both are needed. > > *> If Fortran is not enough,* > It isn't. > * > Digital Mechanism is false.* > How on earth do figure that?? When I payed $80,000 and said yes to the digital doctor (which is YOUR definition of mechanism) I did so with the full understanding that there is nothing special about the particular atoms that are in my body right now and with the doctor's promise that he would do his best to someday arrange atoms so they behave in a johnkclarkian way. The idea is my frozen brain provides the information about how to arrange the atoms, the atoms themselves although vitally important are not a problem because they can come from anywhere. > >> if nothing physical exists then pigs and wings can't cause problems > because they don't exist. And there are no minds that might be upset by > paradoxes. > > *> Assuming a primary physical universe, yes, that’s correct, but then > mechanism has to be abandoned.* > You must have changed your definition yet again, originally you said a belief in mechanism is saying "yes" to the digital doctor and certainly there is nothing in the above that would justify changing the answer to "no", and existence or nonexistence of a primary physical universe has nothing to do with it. So I knew what "mechanism" mente in Brunospeak yesterday but not today. >> the natural number 1 is exactly the number of seconds it takes light to > travel 299,792,458 meters, > > *> 1 is used in 299,792,458.* > That's the trouble with all definitions, eventually they always become circular, but this is not a definition this is something much much better, an example. I show you a distance. I show you the one second mark on a stopwatch. And I show you a light beam. > *> It can do this for an emulated observer. You have not proved that > the“physical silicon” do anything more than that* I can't think of any reason why one emulated observer should have power over numbers that another emulated observer does not, and I think I could make a pretty good case that you are not God and you would be if you could command pure numbers to perform calculations. >>I don't want you to explain anything, I want you you to PERFORM a > calculation without using matter that obeys the laws of physics, and we > both know you're never ever *EVER* going to be able to do that. > > > “Performing” is defined in arithmetic, > Please please stop babbling about definitions. A definition can't produce a answer to a calculation. And definitions are ALWAYS derivative, they play second fiddle to examples. > I*t does not make the physical reality primary.* > And please please stop babbling about things that have NOTHING to do with what we're talking about! > *and then to explain me what is your stuff, with definition or example,* > John K Clark is the way matter behaves when it is organized in a johnkclarkian way. Right now there is only one chunk of matter in the observable universe that behaves that way but there is no law of physics that demands that always be true. *> The question was not about John Clark, but about the stuff you are > using. What is it,* > Physical stuff. And what is physical stuff? The only stuff that can interact with time AND the only stuff where it would matter if 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. > *and how does it make a computation more real.* > Mind and physical stuff is the only stuff with the ability to interact with time and the only stuff that can determine that 2+2 is 4 and not 5. >> My fundamental axiom is consciousness is the way data feels when it is > being processed. > > > > *> I am OK with this, although that is a bit vague. * > I'd be OK with it if you wanted to change "the way" to "a way". > > *It applies to all data processed through the sigma_1 arithmetical > relations.* > No it doesn't. Consciousness changes with time, sigma_1 arithmetical relations don't. And the only thing that makes sigma_1 arithmetical relations different from the other infinitely many arithmetical relations is it happens to come out with 2+2=4 just as you wanted, but the only reason you wanted it to do that is because it's the only one compatible with physics, and the only way you figured out it would work is by using your physical brain. > >> If you think about it although we strongly disagree about a lot of > stuff I wouldn't be surprised if that's your fundamental axiom too. After > all, what is the alternative? > > *> Yes, we agree on this. We disagree only that you invoke some impersonal > god, Matter to make the processing more real,* > I would invoke any "impersonal god" with the ability to interact with time but I know of only one, physical stuff. > *> but then that appears to be invalid. If that was true, that matter > would need magical, non Turing emulable, element, to make some computation > more real,* > I don't have any idea what you mean by that, but I do know a physical Turing Machine can change with time but a description of a Turing Machine written in the language of mathematics can't. *> but then, that theory of consciousness will applied to the (relative) > numbers.* > > > That would be valid if numbers could process data but they can't > because they can't change, > > *> They can’t change in the absolute way,* > Numbers can't change in ANY way. A 7 is always a 7 and that's the only reason why 4+3 is always 7. > *> nor can the block space-time universe of GR.* > INCORRECT! If the block space-time universe never changed why wouldn't physicists always get a zero whenever they differentiated a function with respect to time? The rate of change of the block universe can and does change with the time axis. > *> Matter can do computations because it is Turing universal.* > Yes, and it's the only thing that is. *> But the same is true for all combinatory algebra, all model of > arithmetic, etc.* > This is exactly what I meant when I said you may understand the individual steps in a proof but when you get to the end you've lost track of exactly what it is that has been proven; in this case you've forgotten that mind can change and matter can change but combinatory algebra and all model of arithmetic can't. >> We may use numbers to describe the pattern in space of voltages that are > inside a computer, but it always comes down to voltages not numbers. > > *> Only when you interpret the numbers through electricity.* > Electricity will do what it does regardless of what interpretation I put on it. *> But you can build a Babbage machine,* > Then rather than electricity it would all come down to the momentum of gears and levers, but both electricity and momentum are physical. You can interpret the electricity or momentum as numbers if you like but that's up to you, the computer doesn't care. > *> or just look inside arithmetic to see the emulation of electrical > machine,* > You've got it exactly backwards, arithmetic isn't emulating the machine, the machine is emulating arithmetic. A simulation shouldn't be more complex than the thing it's simulating! It would be like saying a hurricane is simulating a model of a hurricane the weather bureau is running on its computer. *> **2+2=4 independently of anyone verifying the fact.* > If nothing physical existed and there was not 2 of anything (much less 4) then 2+2=4 would mean nothing and *do* nothing and thus be nothing. > >> You think the number 7 changes relative to something. What is that > something? > > > 7 is 6 “after” 1 is added, > So 7 didn't exist before you added 1 to 6? Bruno, come on, you must know you're talking nonsense. > And you never answered my question, after the number 7 changes to > something else how much is 4+3? > > *> If the register as change its content 7 by 8, 7 +1 in a further > instruction could become 8 + 3.* > A computer register stores a pattern of voltages in time and space, those voltages can change, numbers can't. *> Number are not changed, but memory content can change,* > Yes, and memory content must ALWAYS be physical because physical stuff can change with time and nothing else can. > > *and they can be represented by numbers*. > Yes, numbers can be helpful in describing voltages, but voltages are not numbers. >> Relative to the number 11 how has the number 7 changed? > > > 4 > So 11+2 = 6. Bruno, come on, you must know you're talking nonsense. *> Obviously “a number can change” is nonsense, but in the course of a > computation, even, made in arithmetic, a number can change.* > > >> I see, obviously a number changing is nonsense but a number can > change. No, I take that back, I don't see. > > > > *A number can represent a register. * > Yes a number can represent the voltages in a register, and 3 ASCII characters C and A and T can represent a cat, but C-A-T is not a cat. > *That is done in all textbooks.* > No calculation has ever been done in any textbook. Once more you haven't understood what the textbook has proven. > *>>> and have the power to change things in the physical world* > > >> As I've been saying for years stop telling me about how to do it and > just do it, DO IT AND BECOME GOD! > > *> Each time you ask me this you are in the start man fallacy. You ask > something impossible. The point is that it is already done … in > arithmetic. * > So its impossible and it's already been done in arithmetic. I suppose being able to do the impossible is a good definition of God but unfortunately I don't know how to get arithmetic to do that, but you claim you do. So why aren't you God? *> The program x gives 7 on input 4 and 3 when M satisfies T(z, 4, 3, y) & > U(y) = 7, with* > Wait a minute! Program? You can't *do* anything with a program without a computer and you can't have a computer without matter and physics. > *>>> So you don’t agree with Euclid? His proof of the infinity of prime > number is orthogonal to physics. It says nothing in physics, *and it uses > nothing in physics. > >> Euclid's proof contains no error but it starts with a INVALID ASSUMPTION > and you just pointed out exactly what that assumption is; from the first > line of the proof to the last Euclid assumes that numbers have nothing to > do with physics. > > *> Wrong in you materialist metaphysics, but that is only the nth times > you beg the question. You cannot invoke you metaphysical commitment to > refute a proof (of inconsistency). * > I have no idea what you're talking about. 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/CAJPayv0LHOHBW%3DTWG3Qn3LFc%3D9RLgpe%3Dc%2BGrZi4K77M5mg-M6g%40mail.gmail.com.
