Now, Mark Buda is either sarcastic or mad. I think he is pulling your leg here Bruno.
-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 16 juli 2010 16:06 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Civilization-level quantum suicide On 16 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Mark Buda wrote: > I came across this link some time ago and found it interesting: > > http://www.paul-almond.com/CivilizationLevelQuantumSuicide.htm > > In fact, I believe it is what introduced me to the term "quantum > suicide". I had been googling something I had been thinking about in > the shower one day and to my surprise this guy had written a paper > about it. What an amazing coincidence. My life since then has been an > increasingly bizarre series of meaningful coincidences. Meaningful in > a personal way that I can't explain easily. Bruno understands and can > explain why I can't explain; it's to do with his G and G* logics. This is on the fringe of authoritative argument. > > But the upshot of it is this: I have found out what happens when you > commit quantum suicide. You discover that you believe a contradiction, > and that even though nothing about the world has changed, you > understand the universe. That seems very weird. > But you have a hard time explaining it. > Because you discover that you are, in Bruno's terms, a Lobian machine > interviewing itself for the laws of physics. But I am saying this to explain that we can use reason to understand where the laws of physics come from. Not to mystified people with a lack of explanation. > But you can't get the > laws of physics yourself, even though you have all the answers. On the contrary: you can. Everyone can. You cannot besure because you cannot know that you are correct, so the usual doubt of the cartesian scientist remains. Computationalism explains in detail why any form of certainty, when made public, is a symptom of non correctness. > Because you don't care any more - you have a different motivation. You > understand that since you have all the answers but none of the > questions, I don't see any sense here. > you need to talk to people. You figure out the right people > to talk to because your intuition guides you, because that's what it's > for. > > There are people all around the world killing themselves and each > other for crazy reasons. Suicide bombers, for instance. People who > read stuff about the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and kill themselves > because they think the end of the world is coming. 2012 is the year of the election in France. The Maya consider their own prediction as a prediction that some reasonable man will arrive. They never talk of apocalypse. "2012" is like prohibition: making money by selling fears. > > They're right and wrong, and I understand why, but I can't explain it, > and Bruno understands why. I guess I have been unclear at some point. I am just a poor scientist trying to be honest with myself and the others. > But all that stuff happening around the > world is happening for a reason, and it doesn't matter what you - you > can't stop it. Neither can I. But you can listen to this and think > about it, and do whatever you feel like doing: you will anyway. > > If any of you can help me contact Richard Dawkins and talk to him, I > can explain all of this. Why do you want to convince Richard Dawkins? You give him credit. Actually you do his very own error, because when Dawkins try to convince the Christians that they are wrong on God, he gives them credit on their notion of God. No one care about fairy tales, once we tackle the fundamental question with the scientific (= modest, hypotheses-based) approach. > I can explain all of it to anybody if they're > willing to talk to me. But I have to talk face to face, because it's > too hard for me, psychologically, to figure out how to put it in > writing or over the phone, because a lot of human communication is > non- > verbal, and there's an evolutionary reason for that which is part of > the whole thing. Restrain yourself to communicate what is communicable. And just hope that the people will figure out by themselves what is not communicable yet true (like consciousness to take the simplest candidate). > > Perhaps I sound mad, but I have a testable prediction: if I don't > contact Richard Dawkins, sooner or later somebody, somewhere is going > to be researching the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and be led, by an > amazing chain of coincidences, to me. I don't believe in coincidence. Or better I believe coincidences are just that: coincidences. The brain has an habit to over-interpret coincidences, and if you search them, you will find more and more, and you will take the risk of believing anything, that is to become inconsistent. The prohibition of drugs is based on similar form of unsound "reasoning". > And I can explain how that > works. > > Bruno, when you read this, you are literally an angel of God. Figure > out who you need to talk to next. I certainly don't know. Maybe it's > me. Whatever works for you. I talk to universal machines, because I know everyone is at least such a machine, and this is used for showing that what I say can be understood by any one having enough patience and good-willingness. I am not for introducing the non seriousness of some approach from some theology in science, I am for using the scientific method (modesty) in the theology. You may have misunderstood the approach, I'm afraid. If you see a coincidence, you better forget it, I think. If not you take the risk of becoming frustrated (and inconsistent). I worked hard to derive all what I say from "reasonable definitions" (always debatable) and elementary arithmetic, and the a priori austere digital mechanist hypothesis. True: the difference between G* and G can be used to say that the (correct) machines can access to some correct "mystical truth" (true but unprovable), but it points also on the fact that such machines, in that case, remains 100% mute about them. Communicating them publicly or assertively leads to the contrary effect(s). It is the trap in which all public authoritative theologies fall. It is a trap which occurs repeatedly on all spiritual paths. Even this, I should not communicate without insisting that I derive this from the mechanist *hypothesis*, in the discourse of ideally arithmetically correct machine. Take care, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
