Observation versus assumption
71 views
Skip to first unread message
John Clark
Jul 21, 2019, 12:48:15 PM7/21/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> (and I infer “to support genuine consciousness”).
And every time in the history of the world a change in consciousness resulted in a change in the physical state of a brain and a change in the physical state of a brain resulted in a change in consciousness.
> If not, then it is even more weird why you want for matter, given that the computation are realised in arithmetic,
And not once in the history of the world has anyone observed a computation being made in nothing but a change in arithmetic. In fact nobody has ever observed a change in arithmetic period.
>>> the whole video game is executed through pure number relation
>> Incorrect. The whole video game is executed through voltage differences in the microprocessor.
> You can implement it,
You've got it backwards. The numbers don't emulate the voltages in the microprocessor, the voltages in the microprocessor emulate the numbers.
>> We can use the language of mathematics to help us understand how those voltage differences effect each other, and we can if we wish interpret those voltage differences as numbers.
> In your theory which assumes a physical universe.
The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work.
And that is your cue to refute what I just said by referring to a textbook that will never be able to calculate 2+2.
>>> See the combinator thread for a precise disproof of this.
>> Ah yes, that legendary post
>Ad hominem. Boring.
What's boring is your referring to posts that don't exist, your constant whining and using that incredibly pompous Latin phrase.
>> post of yours that plugs all the holes in your theory and proves that everything I've said is wrong, the post that you've been talking about for the better part of a decade, the post that NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN.
> I just said that I have proven that the giving of the lambda expressions [x][y]x (which does the same job as K) and [x][y][z]xz(yz)
I agree, "[x][y]x" does indeed *do* the same job as "K) and [x][y][z]xz(yz)" because both ASCII sequences *do* precisely NOTHING and 0=0 so they both *do* exactly the same thing. Nothing.
>>The logical operation of every computer ever made can be reduced to a Turing Machine.
>True but irrelevant.
How in the world is that fact irrelevant?!
> Actually it makes my point, but usually, thanks to our physical laws (and transistors) the boolean operation will be used to simulate a Turing machines.
Boolean operations don't simulate Turing Machines, Turing Machines simulate Boolean operations.
>> Ironically to rebut my accusation that you keep changing the meaning of "Aristotle theology" you introduced the concept of "Aristotle's second God"; I've never heard anybody mention that before, but I admit you know more about Greek silly ideas than I do.
> The first God is Aristotle first mover it is [...]
Bruno, I did ask you not to tell me, I've given up keeping track of your constantly mutating definitions of common words and invented phrases and acronyms used by nobody but you.
John K Clark
Bruno Marchal
Jul 22, 2019, 3:51:24 AM7/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 21 Jul 2019, at 18:47, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:> (and I infer “to support genuine consciousness”).
And every time in the history of the world a change in consciousness resulted in a change in the physical state of a brain and a change in the physical state of a brain resulted in a change in consciousness.
Which World? Our local physical world? Sure. But we don’t know if that exists in a fundamental way, so that argument is begging the question. As we don’t assume that such a primitively ontological world, you are also changing the theory.
That is not valid.
> If not, then it is even more weird why you want for matter, given that the computation are realised in arithmetic,
And not once in the history of the world has anyone observed a computation being made in nothing but a change in arithmetic. In fact nobody has ever observed a change in arithmetic period.
Knocking table argument. Then “observing a computation” is not defined. Nobody can observe a mathematical object, but with mechanism, the reasoning will show that observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set of them.
>>> the whole video game is executed through pure number relation>> Incorrect. The whole video game is executed through voltage differences in the microprocessor.> You can implement it,
You've got it backwards. The numbers don't emulate the voltages in the microprocessor, the voltages in the microprocessor emulate the numbers.
You misquote my text. It is “you can implement it in arithmetic”.
>> We can use the language of mathematics to help us understand how those voltage differences effect each other, and we can if we wish interpret those voltage differences as numbers.> In your theory which assumes a physical universe.
The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work.
How do you know that? If Digital Mechanism is assumed, it is a theorem in Peano (or even Robinson) arithmetic that there is an infinity of John Clark (in our usual sense like the one used in step 1 and step 2) who claim the exact same thing. You invoke an ontological commitment to claim that they are zombies, or that you know you are not one of them.
And that is your cue to refute what I just said by referring to a textbook that will never be able to calculate 2+2.
Straw man,.
Nobody has ever claim that a textbook calculates. I guess you confuse “1+1=2” and the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.
>>> See the combinator thread for a precise disproof of this.>> Ah yes, that legendary post
>Ad hominem. Boring.
What's boring is your referring to posts that don't exist, your constant whining and using that incredibly pompous Latin phrase.>> post of yours that plugs all the holes in your theory and proves that everything I've said is wrong, the post that you've been talking about for the better part of a decade, the post that NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN.> I just said that I have proven that the giving of the lambda expressions [x][y]x (which does the same job as K) and [x][y][z]xz(yz)
I agree, "[x][y]x" does indeed *do* the same job as "K) and [x][y][z]xz(yz)" because both ASCII sequences *do* precisely NOTHING and 0=0 so they both *do* exactly the same thing. Nothing.
Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and again.
>>The logical operation of every computer ever made can be reduced to a Turing Machine.>True but irrelevant.
How in the world is that fact irrelevant?!> Actually it makes my point, but usually, thanks to our physical laws (and transistors) the boolean operation will be used to simulate a Turing machines.
Boolean operations don't simulate Turing Machines, Turing Machines simulate Boolean operations.
Boolean operations (XOR, for example) + the duplication (the bifurcating wires) + a delay/clock provides a Universal Turing formalism, and indeed, all physical implementations of any digital machine, like Turing machines, *is* implemented through a von Neumann like machine, itself implemented with the Boolean operations. That constitutes simply another universal system (in the usual Church-Turing sense).
>> Ironically to rebut my accusation that you keep changing the meaning of "Aristotle theology" you introduced the concept of "Aristotle's second God"; I've never heard anybody mention that before, but I admit you know more about Greek silly ideas than I do.> The first God is Aristotle first mover it is [...]
Bruno, I did ask you not to tell me, I've given up keeping track of your constantly mutating definitions of common words and invented phrases and acronyms used by nobody but you.
No change of any definition has been done.
Bruno
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1d7GdYOeL1hpk9EPU0pSni-gyqs48T7f%3D8%3DxMdPUnJLA%40mail.gmail.com.
John Clark
Jul 22, 2019, 9:15:37 AM7/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:51 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>And every time in the history of the world a change in consciousness resulted in a change in the physical state of a brain and a change in the physical state of a brain resulted in a change in consciousness.> Which World?
The only one I know for a fact to exist. Maybe Harry Potter's world exists too, but maybe not.
>> And not once in the history of the world has anyone observed a computation being made in nothing but a change in arithmetic. In fact nobody has ever observed a change in arithmetic period.
> Knocking table argument.
Yes, and a damn fine argument that is too. Another name for it is "The Scientific Method" which has worked out rather well for us in the past.
> Then “observing a computation” is not defined.
That's because "defined" is not defined and never will be, you can only learn what the word means by example and you can't do that without making use of the physical world.
> Nobody can observe a mathematical object, but with mechanism, the reasoning will show that [...]
Reasoning is entirely dependent on a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set of them.
Mathematical relations between what? Mathematics is a language so it depends on if you're talking about fiction or nonfiction. If the relation is just between one mathematical object and another with no connection with the one world we know for a fact to exist then you've got the mathematical equivalent of a Harry Potter novel. But if ultimately there is a connection to the physical world then the mathematics is telling us a nonfiction story.
>> The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work.> How do you know that?
Inductive reasoning, the same way people know most things.
> You invoke an ontological commitment to claim that they are zombies,
Yep that's me, I can often be found walking down the street confronting people and shouting at the top of my lungs you are a zombie you are a zombie!
>> And that is your cue to refute what I just said by referring to a textbook that will never be able to calculate 2+2.
> Straw man,. Nobody has ever claim that a textbook calculates.
And you have never been able to successfully knock down that straw man and explain why the hell textbooks can't calculate, or explain why all calculations ever observed require not just matter but matter organized in the way Turing described.
> Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and again.
Means? Meaning requires intelligence, before Evolution invented brains things happened and did stuff but nothing meant anything. Humans are in the meaning conferring business not rocks, we can give meaning to a rock but a rock can't give meaning to us. I think you're the one that's very confused.
>> Boolean operations don't simulate Turing Machines, Turing Machines simulate Boolean operations.> Boolean operations (XOR, for example) + the duplication (the bifurcating wires) + a delay/clock provides a Universal Turing formalism,
Universal Turing formalisms can not perform Boolean operations, they can't do any other sort of calculation either. But a Turing Machine can.
John K Clark
Bruno Marchal
Jul 22, 2019, 10:28:55 AM7/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22 Jul 2019, at 15:14, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:51 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:>>And every time in the history of the world a change in consciousness resulted in a change in the physical state of a brain and a change in the physical state of a brain resulted in a change in consciousness.> Which World?The only one I know for a fact to exist.
Nobody can know that a world exist. You would know that you are consistent, making you inconsistent.
Of course, we all agree that some reality has to exist, but to claim that it is a material world, like you have used in some of your rebuttal, is not valid.
Maybe Harry Potter's world exists too, but maybe not.>> And not once in the history of the world has anyone observed a computation being made in nothing but a change in arithmetic. In fact nobody has ever observed a change in arithmetic period.> Knocking table argument.Yes, and a damn fine argument that is too. Another name for it is "The Scientific Method" which has worked out rather well for us in the past.
Unfortunately the use of the knocking table argument has been debunked already by Plato and others, notably by the dream argument.
> Then “observing a computation” is not defined.That's because "defined" is not defined and never will be, you can only learn what the word means by example and you can't do that without making use of the physical world.> Nobody can observe a mathematical object, but with mechanism, the reasoning will show that [...]Reasoning is entirely dependent on a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
Assuming primitive matter. Changing the theory is not valid.
> observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set of them.Mathematical relations between what?
Numbers and set of numbers.
Mathematics is a language
Confusion between “2+2=4” and the (possible) truth that 2 + 2 is indeed equal to 4.
so it depends on if you're talking about fiction or nonfiction. If the relation is just between one mathematical object and another with no connection with the one world we know for a fact to exist
Nobody knows for a fat that a material world exist, even the arithmetical world. You need to assume this. And my point is that we can test consequences of this.
then you've got the mathematical equivalent of a Harry Potter novel.
Nonsense.
But if ultimately there is a connection to the physical world then the mathematics is telling us a nonfiction story.
In the post 529 christian theology, that makes some sense. But I am agnostic. I wait for some evidence.
>> The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work.> How do you know that?Inductive reasoning, the same way people know most things.
That is good for all FAPP, but non sensical when doing metaphysics with the scientific attitude. Typically, induce reasoning is not able to make a statement true. That is very elementary epistemology.
> You invoke an ontological commitment to claim that they are zombies,Yep that's me, I can often be found walking down the street confronting people and shouting at the top of my lungs you are a zombie you are a zombie!>> And that is your cue to refute what I just said by referring to a textbook that will never be able to calculate 2+2.> Straw man,. Nobody has ever claim that a textbook calculates.And you have never been able to successfully knock down that straw man and explain why the hell textbooks can't calculate,
That follows from Turing’s definition of that is a computation. (Wait perhaps for the glossary, but it will be less soon as I got work).
or explain why all calculations ever observed require not just matter
Only to get a result that you can use, but that whole sentence is true in arithmetic already.
but matter organized in the way Turing described.
That is not needed, and actually false. The only implementation of Turing machine, in their precise mathematical sense, are in the classroom.
> Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and again.Means? Meaning requires intelligence, before Evolution invented brains things happened and did stuff but nothing meant anything. Humans are in the meaning conferring business not rocks, we can give meaning to a rock but a rock can't give meaning to us. I think you're the one that's very confused.
Distracting comment unrelated to the point.
>> Boolean operations don't simulate Turing Machines, Turing Machines simulate Boolean operations.> Boolean operations (XOR, for example) + the duplication (the bifurcating wires) + a delay/clock provides a Universal Turing formalism,Universal Turing formalisms can not perform Boolean operations, they can't do any other sort of calculation either. But a Turing Machine can.
When you have a Turing universal machinery, you have a Turing machine, even an infinity of them, and when you have all Turing machines, you have a universal one, indeed an infinity of them.
I guess you mean “a real Turing machine”, but invoking “real” is not better than invoking God or miracle, and that is not valid.
Bruno
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv355%3Dv_CvustM-4pna-c2NR-JYYjwHxw5g0ELO8rXw-CQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Brent Meeker
Jul 22, 2019, 6:12:08 PM7/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 7/22/2019 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
The only one I know for a fact to exist.
Nobody can know that a world exist. You would know that you are consistent, making you inconsistent.
A confusion of "know" and "prove". A consequence of assuming
knowledge requires proof...in direct contradiction to your
definition of consciousness which is defined in terms of immediate
knowledge.
Brent
Brent
John Clark
Jul 23, 2019, 11:57:51 AM7/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>The only one I know for a fact to exist.> Nobody can know that a world exist.
Does anybody know what "exists" means?
> Of course, we all agree that some reality has to exist,
And everybody experiences a world so that world exists, that is if the word "exists" has any meaning. And don't talk to me about illusion because illusions exist.
>> Yes, and a damn fine argument that is too. Another name for it is "The Scientific Method" which has worked out rather well for us in the past.> Unfortunately the use of the knocking table argument has been debunked already by Plato
And even if I knew nothing else that would immediately tell me that Plato's debunking had itself been debunked sometime in the last 500 years because Plato, just like the other ancient Greek philosophers, didn't know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground.
>> Reasoning is entirely dependent on a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.> Assuming primitive matter.
Oh for god's sake, what does that have to do with it?! The brain can think but it's certainly not primitive matter, it's made of neurons. And neurons are not primitive matter, they're made of organic molecules. And organic molecules are not primitive matter, they're made of atoms. And atoms are not primitive matter, they're made of subatomic particles. And subatomic particles are not primitive matter, they're made of quarks and gluons.
And quarks and gluons may or may not be primitive matter nobody knows, but for the purposes of our discussion it doesn't matter (pun intended) because whatever else they may be we know one thing for sure, they can't think, they display as much intelligent behavior as a sack full of doorknobs.
>>> observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set of them.
>> Mathematical relations between what?
> Numbers and set of numbers.
Rather like the relative literary relationship between a set of characters in a Harry Potter novel.
> Nobody knows for a fat that a material world exist, even the arithmetical world.
Meaning needs contrast. If nothing exists then "exists" means the same thing that "Klogknee" does, absolutely nothing. So the word needs to be anchored at some point and nobody on this list, or anyplace else, has proposed a better place than the physical world we know to exist to anchor and calibrate the word.
>> you've got the mathematical equivalent of a Harry Potter novel.
> Nonsense.
You've been using that one word as your only rebuttal quite a lot lately, if you're not doing it just because you can't think of anything else to say then please elaborate.
> In the post 529 christian theology [...]
You just never stop with that crap! Bruno, lots of interesting things have happened since 529. And none of them involved theology.
>>>> The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work.>>> How do you know that?
>>Inductive reasoning, the same way people know most things.> That is good for all FAPP, but non sensical when doing metaphysics
So I have to choose either Inductive reasoning or metaphysics. Well that's a no-brainer if there ever was one! I choose Inductive reasoning because it's even more important than deductive reasoning.
> with the scientific attitude.
Bruno, are you trying to tell me with a straight face that the scientific method doesn't involve Inductive reasoning?
> Typically, induce reasoning is not able to make a statement true. That is very elementary epistemology.
That's why science can never say theory X is absolutely true, but it can say theory X is less untrue than theory Y; sometimes they can even say it's astronomically less but they can never say infinitely less.
> The only implementation of Turing machine, in their precise mathematical sense, are in the classroom.
BULLSHIT. That's like saying the only implementation of a diesel engine is in an engineering classroom teaching thermodynamics. A physical hurricane is more profound than a computer model of one and a physical Turing Machine is more profound than a mathematical description of one in a textbook.
>>> Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and again.
>>Means? Meaning requires intelligence, before Evolution invented brains things happened and did stuff but nothing meant anything. Humans are in the meaning conferring business not rocks, we can give meaning to a rock but a rock can't give meaning to us. I think you're the one that's very confused.> Distracting comment unrelated to the point.
Unrelated? You're the one who mentioned "means". You're the one who keeps talking about the difference between a ASCII sequence and what that ASCII sequence "means".
> When you have a Turing universal machinery, you have a Turing machine,
You don't unless the machine is made of matter and isn't just printed on the pages of a textbook.
> I guess you mean “a real Turing machine”,
I mean a Physical Turing Machine.
> but invoking “real” is not better than invoking God
That would be true if God could make calculations but there is precisely zero evidence He can even add 2+2, however there is overwhelming evidence that a Physical Turing Machine can. Therefore a Physical Turing Machine is astronomically less unreal than God.
John K Clark
Philip Thrift
Jul 23, 2019, 2:16:03 PM7/23/19
to Everything List
The Only Working Turing Machine There Ever Was, Probably
The TOWTMTEWP
In 1936, Alan Turing wrote about a theoretical universal computer now referred to as a "Turing Machine." In 1972, Washington University professors Wesley Clark and Bob Arnzen likely made the first physical version of Turing's machine. Clark used the TOWTMTEWP ("The Only Working Turing Machine There Ever Was, Probably") as an educational tool, demonstrating basic computer theory for his students.
@philipthrift
Bruno Marchal
Jul 24, 2019, 5:50:03 AM7/24/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23 Jul 2019, at 00:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 7/22/2019 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The only one I know for a fact to exist.
Nobody can know that a world exist. You would know that you are consistent, making you inconsistent.
A confusion of "know" and "prove”.
?
On the contrary. What I said has been derived (like the whole machine theology) from the distinction between knowledge ([]p & p) and belief/prove/assume ([]p).
Hmm, I think you are confusing “world” (nobody can prove that such a thing exist, nor know that such a thing exist) and consciousness, that nobody van prove that such a thing exists, but that everybody can know that it exists).
A consequence of assuming knowledge requires proof...in direct contradiction to your definition of consciousness which is defined in terms of immediate knowledge.
Knowledge requires proof, because the Theatetus’ sort of knowledge is limited to rational knowledge, and is defined by ([]p & p). It is when a belief/assumption is true.
The immediate knowledge is in the “immediate mode” obtained from the nuance ([]p & <>t & p).
G* proves that all modes are equivalent, and that the machine cannot be aware of that equivalence, and that it obeys different logic.
There is one truth, the sigma_1 arithmetical truth, and very different modes of handling that truth, the true mode, the belief mode, the knowledge mode, the observable modes and the sensible modes.
Bruno
Brent
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b293d8af-b691-9a31-2eca-eea6668df266%40verizon.net.
Bruno Marchal
Jul 24, 2019, 7:01:17 AM7/24/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23 Jul 2019, at 17:57, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:>>> Which World?>>The only one I know for a fact to exist.> Nobody can know that a world exist.Does anybody know what "exists" means?
Perhaps we don’t, and that is why I ask people to formalise their idea in first order logic, so we can move forward without any metaphysical baggage.
> Of course, we all agree that some reality has to exist,And everybody experiences a world
Everybody experiences consciousness, but "experiencing a world” is non sensical. You can experience the appearance of a world, and that does not prove its existence, as the dreams illustrates.
so that world exists, that is if the word "exists" has any meaning.
That is why the theology of the universal number is handy: it clearly assumes a very simple ontological existence, in which only 0, s(0), … exists, and it provides 7 different other sense of existence, which are phenomenological, and justified by mathematical logic (mainly Löb’s theorem, Solovay theorems).
ExP(x) = ontological existence.
[]Ex[]P(x) with the seven “[]” given by the modes of the selves, provides all the phenomenological existence, and we get a common language to build assertions mixing them in a proper way.
And don't talk to me about illusion because illusions exist.
Illusions exists, but usually, the object of the illusion does not.
>> Yes, and a damn fine argument that is too. Another name for it is "The Scientific Method" which has worked out rather well for us in the past.> Unfortunately the use of the knocking table argument has been debunked already by PlatoAnd even if I knew nothing else that would immediately tell me that Plato's debunking had itself been debunked sometime in the last 500 years because Plato, just like the other ancient Greek philosophers, didn't know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground.>> Reasoning is entirely dependent on a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.> Assuming primitive matter.Oh for god's sake, what does that have to do with it?! The brain can think but it's certainly not primitive matter, it's made of neurons. And neurons are not primitive matter, they're made of organic molecules. And organic molecules are not primitive matter, they're made of atoms. And atoms are not primitive matter, they're made of subatomic particles. And subatomic particles are not primitive matter, they're made of quarks and gluons.And quarks and gluons may or may not be primitive matter nobody knows, but for the purposes of our discussion it doesn't matter (pun intended) because whatever else they may be we know one thing for sure, they can't think, they display as much intelligent behavior as a sack full of doorknobs.
No problem, but with mechanism, we can go further and say that the quarks and gluons are not primate matter, because they are invariant for the all universal numbers.
>>> observation is explained by relative mathematical relations, or some set of them.>> Mathematical relations between what?> Numbers and set of numbers.Rather like the relative literary relationship between a set of characters in a Harry Potter novel.
If that was the case, we would not promise a million of dollars to solve the arithmetical Riemann hypothesis, or the twin conjectures.
There is no unreasonable applications of Harry Potter novel in physics, for another exemple (an unreasonable applications of math entirely obvious when we postulate mechanism, btw).
> Nobody knows for a fat that a material world exist, even the arithmetical world.Meaning needs contrast. If nothing exists
Nobody says that nothing exists. Everyone knows that his/her consciousness exists. The doubt is on the notion of world, or of any semantic large enough to encompass us. In that case, we can explain why we cannot prove the existence of such a world, as this would makes us into inconsistent universal machine.
then "exists" means the same thing that "Klogknee" does, absolutely nothing. So the word needs to be anchored at some point and nobody on this list, or anyplace else, has proposed a better place than the physical world we know to exist to anchor and calibrate the word.>> you've got the mathematical equivalent of a Harry Potter novel.> Nonsense.You've been using that one word as your only rebuttal quite a lot lately, if you're not doing it just because you can't think of anything else to say then please elaborate.> In the post 529 christian theology [...]You just never stop with that crap! Bruno, lots of interesting things have happened since 529. And none of them involved theology.
Indeed. But only because those who dare to do it where banished, exiled burn alive, persecuted, mocked, differed, etc.
The result; some believe that science has prove the existence of a material world, when of course science is ontologically neutral all the time, even when doing theology or metaphysics.
It is the mark of the con man to asserts that they know what “really exist”.
>>>> The only thing I assume is that if something works then it works and if something doesn't work then it doesn't work. Making calculations with the help of matter works, making calculations without matter doesn't work.>>> How do you know that?>>Inductive reasoning, the same way people know most things.> That is good for all FAPP, but non sensical when doing metaphysicsSo I have to choose either Inductive reasoning or metaphysics.
That does not follow at all. You need only to do metaphysics with the inductive (and deceptive) usually method, and test the results, etc.
Well that's a no-brainer if there ever was one! I choose Inductive reasoning because it's even more important than deductive reasoning.> with the scientific attitude.Bruno, are you trying to tell me with a straight face that the scientific method doesn't involve Inductive reasoning?
No.
> Typically, induce reasoning is not able to make a statement true. That is very elementary epistemology.That's why science can never say theory X is absolutely true, but it can say theory X is less untrue than theory Y; sometimes they can even say it's astronomically less but they can never say infinitely less.
Yes, and we can say that (weak) materialism is false, in all sound mechanist theory of the mind.
> The only implementation of Turing machine, in their precise mathematical sense, are in the classroom.BULLSHIT. That's like saying the only implementation of a diesel engine is in an engineering classroom teaching thermodynamics. A physical hurricane is more profound than a computer model of one and a physical Turing Machine is more profound than a mathematical description of one in a textbook.
But the *apparent* existence of a physical Turing machine is explained in pure arithmetic, though the fact that the arithmetical truth (independently of its many description).
Assuming primitive physical Turing machine does NOT explains even just the appearance of physical Tiring machine, still less of fundamentally existing one.
You need to provide a role too your Matter in consciousness, and
- either that role is Turing emulable, but then it is emulated in arithmetic already,
- or it is not Turing emulable, but then you can’t say “yes” to the digitalist doctor.
>>> Confusion between a sequence of symbols and what it means, again, and again.>>Means? Meaning requires intelligence, before Evolution invented brains things happened and did stuff but nothing meant anything. Humans are in the meaning conferring business not rocks, we can give meaning to a rock but a rock can't give meaning to us. I think you're the one that's very confused.> Distracting comment unrelated to the point.Unrelated? You're the one who mentioned "means". You're the one who keeps talking about the difference between a ASCII sequence and what that ASCII sequence "means".> When you have a Turing universal machinery, you have a Turing machine,You don't unless the machine is made of matter and isn't just printed on the pages of a textbook.
“Printed in a textbook” is different from “emulated in the model of arithmetic”.
> I guess you mean “a real Turing machine”,I mean a Physical Turing Machine.> but invoking “real” is not better than invoking GodThat would be true if God could make calculations but there is precisely zero evidence He can even add 2+2,
Which God?
however there is overwhelming evidence that a Physical Turing Machine can.
Assuming that exists, but then you can’t say “yes” to the mechanist doctor.
Bruno
Therefore a Physical Turing Machine is astronomically less unreal than God.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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1U9ewmt73zJrPyX4Mk%3Dxcad3S87DxhpvM2PrE86Ck73Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruno Marchal
Jul 24, 2019, 7:04:34 AM7/24/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Philip. It shows indeed that physical Turing machine are rather the exception than the rules. The physical implementations of universal machines are mostly boolean nets (“boolean” in a large sense, as they have the bifurcating wires, which needs some implicit “linear logic”, to be precise.
Bruno
@philipthrift
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2d4e2954-f8ac-4c48-b1cf-42452da56f1d%40googlegroups.com.
Brent Meeker
Jul 24, 2019, 2:09:22 PM7/24/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 7/24/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 23 Jul 2019, at 00:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 7/22/2019 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The only one I know for a fact to exist.
Nobody can know that a world exist. You would know that you are consistent, making you inconsistent.
A confusion of "know" and "prove”.
?
On the contrary. What I said has been derived (like the whole machine theology) from the distinction between knowledge ([]p & p) and belief/prove/assume ([]p).
Hmm, I think you are confusing “world” (nobody can prove that such a thing exist, nor know that such a thing exist) and consciousness, that nobody van prove that such a thing exists, but that everybody can know that it exists).
No. You are assuming that you can only have knowledge of p if you
also have proof []p. This is essentially rejecting empirical
knowledge and instead assumes that there some axioms on which []p
can be based.
A consequence of assuming knowledge requires proof...in direct contradiction to your definition of consciousness which is defined in terms of immediate knowledge.
Knowledge requires proof,
Nonsense. That's what I mean by your "definition" of consciousness
does not at all comport with actual experience of consciousness.
What would your proof be based on? Proofs are only relative to
axioms and rules of inference.
because the Theatetus’ sort of knowledge is limited to rational knowledge
?? I suspect your idea of "rational knowledge" does not comport
with anyone's idea of rational since Theatetus.
, and is defined by ([]p & p). It is when a belief/assumption is true.
The immediate knowledge is in the “immediate mode” obtained from the nuance ([]p & <>t & p).
G* proves that all modes are equivalent, and that the machine cannot be aware of that equivalence, and that it obeys different logic.
There is one truth, the sigma_1 arithmetical truth, and very different modes of handling that truth, the true mode, the belief mode, the knowledge mode, the observable modes and the sensible modes.
Bruno
Brent
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b293d8af-b691-9a31-2eca-eea6668df266%40verizon.net.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B3D962C1-2D8D-47B5-B82A-7799B48289D4%40ulb.ac.be.
John Clark
Jul 24, 2019, 3:57:28 PM7/24/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23 Jul 2019, at 20:16, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In 1972, Washington University professors Wesley Clark and Bob Arnzen likely made the first physical version of Turing's machine.
I think that estimate is off by at least fifteen orders of magnitude, not counting stuff that may be on other planets, but even if it were dead accurate that would still mean there was one more Turing Machine than Lambda Calculus Machines.
John K Clark
Quentin Anciaux
Jul 24, 2019, 4:03:33 PM7/24/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I think you're conflating physical Von Neumann machines as turing machines...
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0UvMZew6HZpL9ek51CAE65WAQbDRx2ouXAbu3t4SfDog%40mail.gmail.com.
Philip Thrift
Jul 24, 2019, 6:31:16 PM7/24/19
to Everything List
Von Neumann's project was the physical realization of Alan Turing's Universal Machine, a theoretical construct invented in 1936.
turing did design this, whicj was built.
The Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) was a British early electronic stored-program computer designed by Alan Turing.
For lambda calculus, see K-machines:
http://pop-art.inrialpes.fr/~fradet/PDFs/HOSC07.pdf
Perhaps the microcoded Lisp processor (Texas Instruments) comes close to a lambda calculus hardware ,machine.
Perhaps the microcoded Lisp processor (Texas Instruments) comes close to a lambda calculus hardware ,machine.
There are the (theoretical) blueprint, specification for machines, and then the machines that are built.
A blueprint/specification for a building is not a building.
@philipthrift
Bruno Marchal
Jul 25, 2019, 7:20:10 AM7/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 24 Jul 2019, at 20:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 7/24/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jul 2019, at 00:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 7/22/2019 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The only one I know for a fact to exist.
Nobody can know that a world exist. You would know that you are consistent, making you inconsistent.
A confusion of "know" and "prove”.
?
On the contrary. What I said has been derived (like the whole machine theology) from the distinction between knowledge ([]p & p) and belief/prove/assume ([]p).
Hmm, I think you are confusing “world” (nobody can prove that such a thing exist, nor know that such a thing exist) and consciousness, that nobody van prove that such a thing exists, but that everybody can know that it exists).
No. You are assuming that you can only have knowledge of p if you also have proof []p.
On the contrary, I explain that we cannot justify that []p -> p, and that is why for knowledge, we have to use []p & p instead of just []p.
Proving proves nothing! After Gödel, “proving” is just rational hypothetical beliefs. Knowledge comes from personal experience, and never go out of personal experience, but we can use them to try theories/beliefs, and test their consequences.
This is essentially rejecting empirical knowledge and instead assumes that there some axioms on which []p can be based.
That is right, and that is how eventually incompleteness justifies the existence and the importance of the empirical beliefs/theories, and the personal knowledge.
A consequence of assuming knowledge requires proof...in direct contradiction to your definition of consciousness which is defined in terms of immediate knowledge.
Knowledge requires proof,
Nonsense. That's what I mean by your "definition" of consciousness does not at all comport with actual experience of consciousness. What would your proof be based on? Proofs are only relative to axioms and rules of inference.
Knowledge is []p & p. It requires proof because I limit myself to rational knowledge, but requiring does not mean that it is identify with proof. The conscious knowledge is in “p” not “[]p”.
You might need to reread my posts as I insist on this since long. Proof is neither truth, nor knowledge.
because the Theatetus’ sort of knowledge is limited to rational knowledge
?? I suspect your idea of "rational knowledge" does not comport with anyone's idea of rational since Theatetus.
It is the standard definition of knowledge since Theaetetus. See Gerson’s book on this (“ancient epistemology”).
Gerson critics it, like Socrates in the Theaetetus, but the incompleteness theorem refutes Socartes, and Gerson’s refutation of it.
Bruno
, and is defined by ([]p & p). It is when a belief/assumption is true.
The immediate knowledge is in the “immediate mode” obtained from the nuance ([]p & <>t & p).
G* proves that all modes are equivalent, and that the machine cannot be aware of that equivalence, and that it obeys different logic.
There is one truth, the sigma_1 arithmetical truth, and very different modes of handling that truth, the true mode, the belief mode, the knowledge mode, the observable modes and the sensible modes.
Bruno
Brent
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b293d8af-b691-9a31-2eca-eea6668df266%40verizon.net.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B3D962C1-2D8D-47B5-B82A-7799B48289D4%40ulb.ac.be.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5c00288a-e420-d9d2-3151-72669eb52434%40verizon.net.
John Clark
Jul 26, 2019, 11:27:04 AM7/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> Does anybody know what "exists" means?> Perhaps we don’t, and that is why I ask people to formalise their idea in first order logic, so we can move forward without any metaphysical baggage.
Bruno, you can't specify the referent in the numerous personal pronouns used in your thought experiments, and you place great emphasis on phantom calculations that can't be detected by anyone or anything. So don't talk to me about "metaphysical baggage"!
>> everybody experiences a world> Everybody experiences consciousness, but "experiencing a world” is non sensical.
Experiencing a world means experiencing the things in that world. What else could it mean? Hammers exist in our world, if your hit your finger with one you will experience pain.
> You can experience the appearance of a world, and that does not prove its existence,
How would the appearance of a world that existed differ from a world that did not exist? If there is no difference then the word "existence" means precisely nothing.
> as the dreams illustrates.
Dreams exist.
>> so that world exists, that is if the word "exists" has any meaning.
> That is why the theology [...]
And that us my cue to stop reading the paragraph because nothing of interest has ever come after you've used that word.
>> And don't talk to me about illusion because illusions exist.> Illusions exists, but usually, the object of the illusion does not.
That's because things would be different if the object of illusions did exist, when you woke up from a nightmare the monster would still be around. So the words "existence" and "nonexistence" have meaning in this context.
>> And quarks and gluons may or may not be primitive matter nobody knows, but for the purposes of our discussion it doesn't matter (pun intended) because whatever else they may be we know one thing for sure, they can't think, they display as much intelligent behavior as a sack full of doorknobs.> No problem, but with mechanism, we can go further and say that the quarks and gluons are not primate matter, because they are invariant for the all universal numbers.
And numbers are invariant for all quarks and gluons. So what? I don't care what's fundamental I care what can calculate and numbers can't but matter can if it is organized in such a way that its logical operation can be reduced to a Turing Machine.
>>> Numbers and set of numbers.>> Rather like the relative literary relationship between a set of characters in a Harry Potter novel.> If that was the case, we would not promise a million of dollars to solve the arithmetical Riemann hypothesis, or the twin conjectures.
It's not easy to write a fictional book as popular as a Harry Potter novel, if it was we'd have a lot more than a million dollars, we'd all be as rich as JK Rowling. Sometimes it can be very difficult to write good mathematical fiction too, the type that can entertain mathematicians.
> There is no unreasonable applications of Harry Potter novel in physics,
That's because a novel can be entertaining and consistent (have no plot holes) and be fictional and written in the language of English, and this would be of no use to Physics. The same thing would be true of fiction written in the language of mathematics even if it had no plot holes.
> It is the mark of the con man to asserts that they know what “really exist”.
It is the mark of the con man to assert that something no person and no thing can detect "really exists”, phantom calculations for example.
>>So I have to choose either Inductive reasoning or metaphysics.> That does not follow at all. You need only to do metaphysics with the inductive (and deceptive)
Metaphysics with both inductive and deductive reasoning is just plain old vanilla physics. Pure mathematics like number theory may be able to limp along with just deductive reasoning (although even here they often would not know which of the infinite number of mathematical statements they should even try to prove) but with science you've got to have both types of reasoning or you end up with junk science, for example metaphysics.
>> That's like saying the only implementation of a diesel engine is in an engineering classroom teaching thermodynamics. A physical hurricane is more profound than a computer model of one and a physical Turing Machine is more profound than a mathematical description of one in a textbook.> But the *apparent* existence of a physical Turing machine is explained in pure arithmetic,
Thermodynamic explanations of how a diesel engine operates is for our benefit only, it doesn't help the engine. Explanations can't calculate, and neither can definitions or assumptions or theories or numbers or textbooks. Only Turing Machines can calculate.
> “Printed in a textbook” is different from “emulated in the model of arithmetic”.
Without a Physical Turing Machine nothing can emulate anything. Turing Machines can *do* arithmetic but arithmetic can't *do* emulations or anything else.
>>> but invoking “real” is not better than invoking God>> That would be true if God could make calculations but there is precisely zero evidence He can even add 2+2,> Which God?
God in which language, English or Brunospeak?
John K Clark
Bruno Marchal
Jul 27, 2019, 6:37:27 AM7/27/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 26 Jul 2019, at 17:26, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:>> Does anybody know what "exists" means?> Perhaps we don’t, and that is why I ask people to formalise their idea in first order logic, so we can move forward without any metaphysical baggage.Bruno, you can't specify the referent in the numerous personal pronouns used in your thought experiments,
That is wrong. You are just calling ambiguity the indeterminacy. Just take my rest in the form that physics is reduced to a ambiguity calculus, if you don’t like the “first person indeterminacy” term.
and you place great emphasis on phantom calculations that can't be detected by anyone or anything. So don't talk to me about "metaphysical baggage”!
There is no metaphysical baggage. To define properly “digital”, you need some amount of arithmetic. No need to add any metaphysics. If you believe in the notion of prime numbers, then you have no choice that to believe in the computations, just assuming arithmetic.
You want to see metaphysical baggage, perhaps to hide that you are the one invoking an ontological commitment (a primary physical substance) in most of your “reasoning”.
The only metaphysical or psychological hypothesis in mechanism is in the Church thesis and the yes doctor.
>> everybody experiences a world> Everybody experiences consciousness, but "experiencing a world” is non sensical.Experiencing a world means experiencing the things in that world.
Experiencing a dream means experiencing the things in the dream, too.
You can’t experience the world itself. You can experience only the appearance of it, en intellectually decide the plausibility.
What else could it mean? Hammers exist in our world, if your hit your finger with one you will experience pain.
But we don’t know if there is a physical world. That is a very strong hypothesis in metaphysics.
> You can experience the appearance of a world, and that does not prove its existence,How would the appearance of a world that existed differ from a world that did not exist? If there is no difference then the word "existence" means precisely nothing.
Very simple. With mechanism, if a existing world exist, the probability we stay in that worlds is zero. That is why we can’t use that hypothesis.
It is your hypothesis of the primary physical existence which is without purpose, because indeed, we cannot feel the difference.
But we can test the plausibility: and the test have not yet shown any evidence of primary matter.
> as the dreams illustrates.Dreams exist.
Yes, already in arithmetic. But what appears in the dream does exist only phenomenologically, and should not be added in the ontology.
>> so that world exists, that is if the word "exists" has any meaning.> That is why the theology [...]And that us my cue to stop reading the paragraph because nothing of interest has ever come after you've used that word.>> And don't talk to me about illusion because illusions exist.> Illusions exists, but usually, the object of the illusion does not.That's because things would be different if the object of illusions did exist, when you woke up from a nightmare the monster would still be around. So the words "existence" and "nonexistence" have meaning in this context.
And the UDA + AUDA shows that we can test the existence of primary matter, and thanks to QM we can already asserts that the test confirms the immaterialist consequences of the mechanist theory. That’s the point.
>> And quarks and gluons may or may not be primitive matter nobody knows, but for the purposes of our discussion it doesn't matter (pun intended) because whatever else they may be we know one thing for sure, they can't think, they display as much intelligent behavior as a sack full of doorknobs.> No problem, but with mechanism, we can go further and say that the quarks and gluons are not primate matter, because they are invariant for the all universal numbers.And numbers are invariant for all quarks and gluons. So what? I don't care what's fundamental I care what can calculate and numbers can’t
That is ignorance on your part.
but matter can if it is organized in such a way that its logical operation can be reduced to a Turing Machine.>>> Numbers and set of numbers.>> Rather like the relative literary relationship between a set of characters in a Harry Potter novel.> If that was the case, we would not promise a million of dollars to solve the arithmetical Riemann hypothesis, or the twin conjectures.It's not easy to write a fictional book as popular as a Harry Potter novel, if it was we'd have a lot more than a million dollars, we'd all be as rich as JK Rowling. Sometimes it can be very difficult to write good mathematical fiction too, the type that can entertain mathematicians.> There is no unreasonable applications of Harry Potter novel in physics,That's because a novel can be entertaining and consistent (have no plot holes) and be fictional and written in the language of English, and this would be of no use to Physics. The same thing would be true of fiction written in the language of mathematics even if it had no plot holes.> It is the mark of the con man to asserts that they know what “really exist”.It is the mark of the con man to assert that something no person and no thing can detect "really exists”, phantom calculations for example.
I totally agree with you. 100% !
Prime numbers and calculations has been proved to exist in a theory which is a sub-theorry of all natural science theories.
Primary matter has never been detected, nor even really well defined. It is what we call a myth.
>>So I have to choose either Inductive reasoning or metaphysics.> That does not follow at all. You need only to do metaphysics with the inductive (and deceptive)Metaphysics with both inductive and deductive reasoning is just plain old vanilla physics.
That is Aristotle theology. That is not an argument, but a statement of faith.
Pure mathematics like number theory may be able to limp along with just deductive reasoning (although even here they often would not know which of the infinite number of mathematical statements they should even try to prove) but with science you've got to have both types of reasoning or you end up with junk science, for example metaphysics.>> That's like saying the only implementation of a diesel engine is in an engineering classroom teaching thermodynamics. A physical hurricane is more profound than a computer model of one and a physical Turing Machine is more profound than a mathematical description of one in a textbook.> But the *apparent* existence of a physical Turing machine is explained in pure arithmetic,Thermodynamic explanations of how a diesel engine operates is for our benefit only, it doesn't help the engine. Explanations can't calculate, and neither can definitions or assumptions or theories or numbers or textbooks. Only Turing Machines can calculate.> “Printed in a textbook” is different from “emulated in the model of arithmetic”.Without a Physical Turing Machine nothing can emulate anything.
That is not correct. I guess you meant: “Without a Physical Turing Machine nothing can physically emulate anything.”
But that is again a statement of Aristotelian, materialist, faith.
Turing Machines can *do* arithmetic but arithmetic can't *do* emulations or anything else.
Arithmetic is a Turing universal system, even RA, or even just the diophantine polynomials. It emulates all universal systems.
See Matiyasevic book on the 10th Hilbert problem to see an explicit emulation of all Turing machines by one diophantine polynomial equation. (Section 5.5, “Diophantine simulation of Turing machines, page 85-92).
Bruno
>>> but invoking “real” is not better than invoking God>> That would be true if God could make calculations but there is precisely zero evidence He can even add 2+2,> Which God?God in which language, English or Brunospeak?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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1sYv2av22hxZcAx3qrv3z9r4M_tz6B8THhqUC%3DX_F1%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
Philip Thrift
Jul 27, 2019, 7:21:30 AM7/27/19
to Everything List
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:37:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic is a Turing universal system, even RA, or even just the diophantine polynomials. It emulates all universal systems.See Matiyasevic book on the 10th Hilbert problem to see an explicit emulation of all Turing machines by one diophantine polynomial equation. (Section 5.5, “Diophantine simulation of Turing machines, page 85-92).Bruno
Diophantine machines
Yuri Matiyasevich
@philipthrift
Bruno Marchal
Jul 27, 2019, 8:45:39 AM7/27/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
You can also download the chapter 5 of Matiyasevic book, which is relevant here, from
With a commentary which is even more relevant, here:
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/986400a3-1eaa-46be-be70-5362e0d5b45c%40googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages