What "Future Tense". Given a defined computation, there IS, as is there
exists, a correct and complete emulation result. That result is created
INSTANTLY thd moment teh computation is defined. (whether it existed
before we defined the machine gets into metaphysics). Nothing needs to
happen to determine this, it just exists. This is the nature of truths,
they just are.
Note, we might not have KNOWLEDGE of the result, and need to compute it
to know it, but the actual answer existed.
Are you saying we aren't allowed to FIRST do the emulation and then ask
H for its opinion? And isn't your arguement that H needs to first
determine this behavior to make its answer, so if anything, the
emulation behavior would be PAST tense, except that for these cases,
because the behavior needs the answer from H to be determined, all the
time collapses into the present.
You seem to have a mistaken idea that we need to actually perform in
some mechanical way a computation for it to have an answer. We need to
do the computation to KNOW the answer, but the exact value exists as
soon as it is defined.
And, the answer to your question, does the complete and correct x86
emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) ever reach the "ret: instruction, the
exact answer is if H(Px,Px) would return a value in finite steps, then
Px(Px) will Halt. If H(Px,Px) never returns a value then Px(Px) will not
This is because a correct and complete emulation of an input to a Halt
Decideer is only defined in terms of the machine the input represents.
> You always change this question to a different question:
> Does (present tense) the complete and correct x86 emulation of the input
> to H(Px,Px) by H ever reach the "ret" instruction of Px.
Because there is not tempral aspect to make it future!
> A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an
> informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument,
> whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted,
> but instead replaced with a false one.
Right, and you are the master of that. As I said, what need is there for
there to be a "future tense", the answer existed as soon as the machine
in question was defined, if not before.