> On 19 Sep 2019, at 12:12, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 3:56:43 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:45 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > Don't you use definitions in physics, such as mass, energy, velocity, > > acceleration, space, time, entropy? > > Sure, and every one of those definitions came from EXAMPLES observed in the > physical world. The definitions didn't create the physical world, the > physical world created the definitions. > > John K Clark > > I am not saying that examples are not suggestive of laws of physics. All I am > saying, which you irrationally deny, is that definitions are part of an > overall process for knowing reality, that is, for actually doing physics.
Hmm … if you are patient and honest, I can explain that physics does not study the fundamental reality, but only one aspect of it. > Without them we can't speak meaningfully with each other. And most people > still use dictionaries, which are now online, and often are implicit in our > discussions. As I recall quite clearly, it was YOU who have been vigorously > critical of Bruno for his alleged sloppy and varying DEFINITIONS!. Clark seems to have a personal agenda, and will systematically try to confuse people on the issue of the consequence of mechanism. Now, in mathematical logic there is a huge chapter of definability theory, and we can prove that machine’s introspecting themselves will be confronted to “obvious but undeniable truth”, like “I am conscious” will belong. Also, “knowledge” by a machine cannot be defined by that machine, but the machine can define “knowledge” for a simpler machine than itself, and the, by assuming Mechanism, can lift that theory on itself, but she has to be very cautious, as the math shows that when done in some manner, the machine will become inconsistent. This is related to what I call the theological trap. Some truth becomes false when asserted or prove. The logical equation []x -> ~x has many non trivial solutions (x = f; x = <>t, x = <><>t, etc. “<> is the dual of [] (provable) and can be read consistent. Dual means that <>p is the same as ~[]~p. > Looks like your achieving troll status with foolish argments. So where is > Bruno? AG I am here AG. Sorry for being late, but it is the academical “entry” (we say in French) and there is a lot of work. Bruno > > -- > 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/d5ae645d-40e7-4a75-89a5-3249cdb8717b%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d5ae645d-40e7-4a75-89a5-3249cdb8717b%40googlegroups.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/B49E5911-5650-4AA4-BB7D-702FC6210755%40ulb.ac.be.
