Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort

On 3/28/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/28/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott:

On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott:

On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott:

On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:

On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:

(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
     because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.

>
To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>
To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.

>
That would entail that

>
Tough shit. That is the requirement.

>
I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.

>
You proved that the requirement is not actually the requirement?

>
I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, it can still
be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it through for yourself.

>
Every program/input pair either halts some time, or never halts.
Determining this is a coherent requirement.

>
That part is coherent.

>
The part that this determination must be done by a Turing machine
using descriptions of the program and input is coherent, too.
>

>
Every decider is required by definition to only report on what
this input specifies.
>
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6
even if you really really believe that it should.
>

>
Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H that aborts and returns false, so that D halts, should not return a report about another D that does not halt, even if you really really believe that it should.

>
There is enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 3+4.
There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 5+6.
>
There is enough information for H1(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
>

>
But it is possible to create a simulating sum decider that aborts sum and returns the sum of 5+6 and then claim that it is right, because it has not enough information to calculate 3+4. It is possible, but wrong.
The only reason it has not enough information, is that it aborts prematurely. That makes the decision to abort wrong. This holds for H as well.

>
Why are you denying reality?

>
Olcott is frustrated, but wrong.
>

>
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
>
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

>
Wrong. Should be:
*will return false* (unless aborted)

>
There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever
returns false whether its simulation has been aborted or not.
Are you fibbing about your programming  skill?
>

>
But that statement only hold in a world where the only simulator is H,

>
Yes that has always been the freaking point that you deep dodging to run out the clock of my rebuttals.

>
Which isn't the world you claim to be in, that of COMPUTASTION THEORY.
>
If you want to talk about a universe with only two "sets" of Programs, H and D, then SAY SO, and admit that you are talking about something WORTHLESS.
>

>
>
>

>

and a D that magically changes (and thus not actually a valid model)
>

>
*D IS ALWAYS THESE MACHINE CODE BYTES* 83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3

>
And thus is NOT an actual PROGRAM, so outside the bounds of the theory.
>
>
>

>

That is just a LIE.

>
Every time you call me a liar puts you closer to
the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.
>

>
Nope, since I speak the truth when I say it.
>
You just plant yourself deeper when you deny it.
>
Remember, your "beleif" doesn't matter to God. A LIE is the speaking of a FALSEHOOD, whether known or not.
>

>
THAT IS FALSE.

>
Nope.
>
God is the God of TRUTH.
>

>

People who honestly beleive the wrong things about God, are still going to experience his WRATH, because he gives us enough evidence, if we are willing to beleive him. He also gives us enough rope, that we can hang ourselves on our own self-deceptions.

>
A God that <is> Love and <has> Wrath cannot possibly exist
because love itself has no wrath.
>

>
Nope, you just don't understand, and it is just too complicated to explain to you.
>
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.

>
Loving others with empathy goes directly against the inherently
selfish human nature and aligns with the divine nature.
>

>
But doesn't mean you are loving them in the way you are told to love them.

>
Loving them with empathy is the correct criterion measure.

>
Nope, loving them with agape is the correct criterion measure, something you can't understand as you don't know god.
>

>
Yes that would be the correct criterion measure.
That is over most people's heads so loving others with
empathy cuts off loving them with self-righteous judgment.

>
Except it doesn't get you to where you need to be.
>

>
According to your fallible estimation.

>
Perhaps in part, but it also doesn't meet the definition of what we are to do.
>

What is your infallible measure of this?

I don't claim to be infallible.
I can just count on GOD to be.
If you want to take your own feelings over the clear wording of the Word, go ahead. When you come before the Judge, he will know EVERYTHING that was in your heart, and either you try to measure up on your own, (and fail, as you are not perfect) or you can show you depended on him to guide you.
But that means you needed to let him guide you.

 

>

>

Loving them with self-righteous indignation is incorrect.
Too many people that call themselves Christian just don't get this.

>
>
I will agree with you there.
>

Great !!!
>

>

>
You don't KNOW the divine nature. You can't, because you say you reject anything that isn't "love" the way you want to define it.
>

>
Agape, pure benevolence is the Godly kind of love.

>
And that is the love we are commanded to give. NOT "Empathetic", but AGAPE.
>

Simply totally become God and then just love others it too difficult
for any human. Loving them with Agape is the right path though.

>
And to think you become God, put you in direct opposition to him.
>

>
It is impossible for a human to become all knowing and all powerful thus
it is impossible for a human to have God's own agape for others. The key
missing piece for humans is directly seeing how the key details of
reality exactly fit into the master plan.

>
Right, and we are not asked to.
>
No, the key missing piece is for humans to see how to they can fit in the master plan of God, who is ABOVE "reality".
>

>
Isaiah 64:6 KJV
...all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
>

Satan thought that he could be like God, and he, and those that follow him, are eternally DAMNED for that.
>
To claim that you are becoming like God just shows you lsten to much to Satan, and he has captured your soul.
>

>
To love like God must first becomes totally Godlike, this is an impossible standard. To love like Christ one must become Christ
like. This is an enormously difficult standard.

>
Nope. As you pointed out above, that is impossible.
>
To love like God, we need to understand HIS love, and try to imitate it.
>
We don't try to be TOTALLY God-like, but try to copy the attributes that he directs us to copy.
>

>

I was on that path many years ago, but then saw the light, and repented.
>
That option is still available to you while you have breath, but the door WILL close. You might be so seared that you can not repent any more.
>

>
I see nothing that I need to repent of that I am not already
repenting of.

>
And that is the first part of your problem. I would say the first thing you need to repent of is thinking you get to decide what the Bible means, and that you get to pick and choose what parts you will obey.
>

 Everyone including you does this same thing.
 

You need to make God, into your ACTUAL God that you allow to RULE over your life.
>
He will let us wander way and do evil, but warns us of the consequences, like the Lake of Fire.
>

>
Galatians 5:14 NRSV
For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

>
Which you misunderstand, as you don't understand that was given to people who already dedicated themselves to following God and his commands.
>

 The words have a precise meaning taking them a different meaning
than what they say is incorrect.
 

>

>
I see far too many people that call themselves "Christian" that have
no empathy and only have self-righteousness in its place.
>
>

>

>

>