> On 1 Nov 2019, at 18:28, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> theology failed spectacularly, not only did it fail to provide any answers > >> it couldn't even find the right questions to ask. > > > It provided science. Science is born from religion > > In the same way knowledge is born from ignorance perhaps.
Exactly. People used Zeus for Thunder, because they were ignorant of what could be Thunder. And the first use of gods was to mean “concept (that we don’t grasp)” by the earlier researchers. > As the bible says: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a > child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish > things”. Which all educated person did. The christians following the course of Hypatia in Alexandra where still knowing that the fundamental question is not about the existence of God (the ultimate reality that we search, the reason of why “here and now”, which exists by definition or assumption for any researcher in the fundamental domain), but on the question of the existence of nature (real or appearance from a deeper reality perspective, which would be mathematical or perhaps musical (wavy), etc.). > > > You need perhaps to study a bit of history of science, > > I would bet money I could beat you on a quiz on the history of science. > > > He could explain this. > > Pythagoras could prove the square root of 2 was irrational but he wasn't > happy about it because although he knew it was true he felt he didn't > understand why it was true, That, according to some recent studies is a myth. He knew perfectly well why sqrt(2) has to be different from any ratio, and there are no proof that Pythagorus taught this could refute his all-number philosophy, despite lacking Church’s thesis which somehow rehabilitate that position in the fundamental domain. Once you grasp that all you need to run a program is a universal machine/number, it is up to believer in a physical reality to explain what that could be, and how it could interfere with the computations realised in arithmetic. But for this you need to understand well the difference between a theory and a model, that is mainly the difference between proof and truth (as well illustrated by the incompleteness phenomenon). > and he made his followers vow to keep the scandelius truth secret; there is > even a story, perhaps apocryphal, that he murdered one of them for breaking > this vow and telling a outsider that the square root of 2 could not be > expressed as a fraction. Yes, it is probably apocryphal. We lack sources on this. According to some, a branch of Pythagorianism was rather sectary, and the guy would her been killed for telling a secret, not that secret in particular. > > > The definition of process in computer science is “implementation in a > > Turing universal environment”. > > Mathematicians are free to make any sort of definition they want, but few of > them are as silly as you and think that after they have proved something > about the thing they have just arbitrarily defined that must mean they have > proven that thing they defined physically exists. But it is up to those committing themselves ontologically to provide at least some evidence. Computation have been discovered in mathematics, and then in arithmetic (despite Gödel did the hard work before). This has been discovered independently by Emil Post (10 years before all the others, but he did not publish), Gödel (he missed the machine, though), and then explicitly (and published) by Church 1936, Turing 1936, Kleene 1936, etc.). > > > I don’t believe in Matter. > > Who cares? Belief doesn't matter, Plato who you love so It is not a question of loving, but of reasoning. > much didn't believe the Earth orbited the sun but that didn't make it untrue. That’s true, but then I do not defend their astronomy, so that is not relevant. Perhaps you believe that if someone said something wrong, all what he said is wrong, but that does not follow. > > > Robinson arithmetic is Turing emulable. > > Yes, but you've forgotten what that means. You think that by proving a system > is Turing emulable that means the axioms alone can make calculations, and > that is ridiculous. That does not follow from the fact that Robinson arithmetic provability iOS Turing emulable (which is rather trivial) but from the fact that Robinson Arithmetic is Turing Universal, which is not obvious at all. > Why do you suppose Turing himself spent so much time building actual physical > machines? By curiosity on the Riemann Zeta function, at first, and then as a tool to decode the encrypted message of the Nazis. Bruno > > > Here you invoke without saying your “god” Primary Matter [...] > > And that is my cue to say goodbye because nothing intelligent ever follows. > > 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/CAJPayv0%2Bu%2BFb%3DxYRAT4S2jseGQMNcbNVjrq-2k3BOejU_8i_JA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0%2Bu%2BFb%3DxYRAT4S2jseGQMNcbNVjrq-2k3BOejU_8i_JA%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/159154C5-9AB3-4DBE-8290-781638ACD2EC%40ulb.ac.be.
