Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Hal Ruhl writes: Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. You mean physical consequences or something similar, don't you? I don't see anything logically inconsistent about a talking white rabbit or even the atoms of my keyboard reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon. I agree with Stathis. Much more, I can prove to you that the sound lobian machine agrees with Stathis! It is a key point: there is nothing inconsistent with my seeing and measuring white rabbits (cf dreams, videa, ...). Both with QM and/or comp, we can only hope such events are relatively rare. Now, a naive reading of the UD can give the feeling that with comp white rabbits are not rare at all, and that is why I insist at some point that we have to take more fully into account the objective constraints of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic (some of which are counter-intuitive and even necessarily so). Hal Ruhl continued: I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics a case can be given that it *is* the contrary. It is by taking the full set of (relative histories) that the quantum phase randomization can eliminate the quantum aberrant histories (cf Feynman paths). It works with the QM because of the existence of destructive interferences, and somehow what the computationalist has to justify is the (first person plural) appearance of such destructive effects. 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-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? John M On 2/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the Noble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and obligation (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such ideals as simply sentiments, debunking them on a surface level (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his lectures on The Abolition of Man. And indeed, without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton of his true self. Tom You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in the Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief in the Sky God is true? Stathis Papaioannou -- Live Search: New search found Try it!http://get.live.com/search/overview+ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: The Meaning of Life
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis PapaioannouDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeStathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? John M On 2/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the Noble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and obligation (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such ideals as simply sentiments, debunking them on a surface level (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his lectures on The Abolition of Man. And indeed, without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton of his true self. Tom You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in the Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief in the Sky God is true? Stathis PapaioannouLive Search: New search found Try it! _ Get connected - Use your Hotmail address to sign into Windows Live Messenger now. http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathiws, no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system. BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the professional). IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th beatitude). To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly unique. We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John, You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis Papaioannou Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? John M On 2/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hal and list: I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if one thinks so. Or is it only my handicap? John M - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. Yours Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset. This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person) white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does not reintroduce new one. 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-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
John Mikes wrote: Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? John M On 2/5/07, *Stathis Papaioannou* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. True. But evolution does predict that an individual of an evolved species will have values, will find some things good and some bad, and further that, with high probability, these values will comport with reproductive success. You could for example fairly easily distinguish a race of robots who were engineered to serve human beings (angels?) from an evolved race of robots simply by their behavior and implied values. The former do have lives with meaning - their purposes refer outside themselves. The later have their own purposes. I'm content to be one of the latter. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis, maybe I shoot too high, but I was expecting something better from you, at least referring to what I said. John On 2/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis Papaioannou -- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? John M On 2/5/07, *Stathis Papaioannou* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the Noble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and obligation (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such ideals as simply sentiments, debunking them on a surface level (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his lectures on The Abolition of Man. And indeed, without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton of his true self. Tom You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in the Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief in the
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:23:19PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics a case can be given that it *is* the contrary. It is by taking the full set of (relative histories) that the quantum phase randomization can eliminate the quantum aberrant histories (cf Feynman paths). It works with the QM because of the existence of destructive interferences, and somehow what the computationalist has to justify is the (first person plural) appearance of such destructive effects. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ The informatic destructive effects are due to conflicting information reducing the total amount of information. If I have the sentence the sheep is totally black and the sheep is totally white, then I have rather less information about the sheep than if I had (say) the sheep is totally black. Addition of information obeys the triangle inequality I(a+b) \leq I(a) + I(b) Curiously, addition of wave amplitudes in QM also obey the triangle inequality. I suspect there is more to this connection than mere coincidence, although I haven't spent too much time trying to work out the details. Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: The Meaning of Life
John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is acknowledged.Stathis PapaioannouFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500 Stathiws, no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system. BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the professional). IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th beatitude). To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly unique. We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis Papaioannou Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeStathis:is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered:I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another?John M On 2/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to
RE: The Meaning of Life
Brent meeker writes:Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. True. But evolution does predict that an individual of an evolved species will have values, will find some things good and some bad, and further that, with high probability, these values will comport with reproductive success. You could for example fairly easily distinguish a race of robots who were engineered to serve human beings (angels?) from an evolved race of robots simply by their behavior and implied values.The former do have lives with meaning - their purposes refer outside themselves. The later have their own purposes. I'm content to be one of the latter. Brent MeekerI don't know that the purpose supposed to be provided by God is as coherent as your robot example. As I understand it, God did not program us to be good or to believe in him because he wanted us to arrive at the right answer freely. However, he must have programmed us to an extent, because our values are at least partly the result of evolution, as you suggest. What formula he used to set how much of our values would be determined and how much free is not clear. Stathis Papaioannou _ Live Search: New search found http://get.live.com/search/overview --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: The Meaning of Life
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head, like your brother-in-law. However, this is *inconsistent*, and inconsistent is even worse than wrong. Stathis PapaioannouDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:03:05 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeStathis, maybe I shoot too high, but I was expecting something better from you, at least referring to what I said. JohnOn 2/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis PapaioannouDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeStathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? John M On 2/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the Noble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and obligation (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such ideals as simply sentiments, debunking them on a surface level (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his lectures on The Abolition of Man. And indeed, without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton of his true self. Tom You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno: At 06:23 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Hal Ruhl writes: Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. You mean physical consequences or something similar, don't you? I don't see anything logically inconsistent about a talking white rabbit or even the atoms of my keyboard reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon. My model taps the inconsistency of a complete collection of information to give the dynamic of its universe state to state succession at least some random content. There is no conflict in my approach with talking white rabbits or uncommonly evolving keyboards. What I indicated is that all I needed to encompass our world in a UD metaphor of a sub set of my model was a compatible ongoing intersection of a set [an infinite set most likely] of UD traces. The picture is a set of say twenty traces all arriving at twenty Our World compatible successive states simultaneously. If the traces assign a compatible degree of hyper existence to their respective states then the result is twenty immediately successive states with a rising then falling degree of Hyper existence. The intersecting traces are not even necessarily logically related just compatibly coincident for one of Our World's ticks so to speak. At the next tick of our world a completely different set of twenty traces can be involved. Our World can be precisely as random as it needs to be. I agree with Stathis. Much more, I can prove to you that the sound lobian machine agrees with Stathis! It is a key point: there is nothing inconsistent with my seeing and measuring white rabbits (cf dreams, videa, ...). Both with QM and/or comp, we can only hope such events are relatively rare. Now, a naive reading of the UD can give the feeling that with comp white rabbits are not rare at all, and that is why I insist at some point that we have to take more fully into account the objective constraints of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic (some of which are counter-intuitive and even necessarily so). Hal Ruhl continued: I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics a case can be given that it *is* the contrary. It is by taking the full set of (relative histories) that the quantum phase randomization can eliminate the quantum aberrant histories (cf Feynman paths). It works with the QM because of the existence of destructive interferences, and somehow what the computationalist has to justify is the (first person plural) appearance of such destructive effects. Bruno Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my model. As I said above Our World can be as precisely as random as it needs to be. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John: Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we should give it another try. Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: Hal and list: I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if one thinks so. Or is it only my handicap? John M - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. Yours Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset. This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person) white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does not reintroduce new one. 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-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Just to clarify - in the metaphor a UD trace that assigns a Hyper Existence of say 0.2 does so to all states it lands on because the UD is that type of UD. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head, like your brother-in-law. However, this is *inconsistent*, and inconsistent is even worse than wrong. Stathis Papaioannou I'm not sure I agree with that last. Being consistent means you're either all right or all wrong. :-) Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 5, 4:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific type s, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the No ble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and obligation (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such ideals as simply sentiments, debunking them on a surface level (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his lectures on The Abolition of Man. And indeed, without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton of his true self. Tom You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in the Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief in the Sky God is true? Stathis Papaioannou _ I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. So you say. I see no reason to believe it. Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you really read the modern thinkers and writers, that is what they were saying. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Godel, Monod, Lewis, Schaeffer... I don't think you've read these writers. Russell, Camus, and Sartre were definitely advocates of each person providing their own purpose. Incidentally they hardly qualify as modern anymore. I hope that people who are trying to be on the cutting edge of theories of everything will go back and pick up from where these thinkers left off. Not just stand on the shoulders of the physics giants, but also the philosophy (and spiritual!) giants. I know that the modern philosophy road is depressing and unlivable. They bring us to the edge of the cliff. It was depressing for people like the young genius Nick Drake who was found dead on his bed in his 20's after a drug overdose, with Camus' Myth of Sysiphus beside him. But we have to face the reality of where the modern age has brought us in order to find the answer before we all exterminate ourselves. ...taking the leap of faith that it is bad to exterminate ourselves. It's not modern existential angst that threatens our existence. It's the religious zealotry of worshippers of the sky god - in Iran, Pakistan, and the bible belt. In light of modern thought, your argument about the sky god society begs the
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. So you say. I see no reason to believe it. Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you really read the modern thinkers and writers, that is what they were saying. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Godel, Monod, Lewis, Schaeffer... I don't think you've read these writers. Russell, Camus, and Sartre were definitely advocates of each person providing their own purpose. Incidentally they hardly qualify as modern anymore. They each came to the edge of the cliff, but they responded in different ways. Some took the leap of faith (!) to say that somehow providing our own purpose is legitimate. Bertrand Russell said this was incredible, but he believed it anyway. We are in the post- modern age now. I hope that people who are trying to be on the cutting edge of theories of everything will go back and pick up from where these thinkers left off. Not just stand on the shoulders of the physics giants, but also the philosophy (and spiritual!) giants. I know that the modern philosophy road is depressing and unlivable. They bring us to the edge of the cliff. It was depressing for people like the young genius Nick Drake who was found dead on his bed in his 20's after a drug overdose, with Camus' Myth of Sysiphus beside him. But we have to face the reality of where the modern age has brought us in order to find the answer before we all exterminate ourselves. ...taking the leap of faith that it is bad to exterminate ourselves. It's not modern existential angst that threatens our existence. It's the religious zealotry of worshippers of the sky god - in Iran, Pakistan, and the bible belt. Solshenitzyn said that the line between good and evil does not run between cultures, beliefs, etc. but right down the center of every human being. (Don't know if I remembered the quote exactly.) In light of modern thought, your argument about the sky god society begs the question of meaning by assuming that they *shouldn't* be miserable and kill each other. This is not a dilemma to pass over lightly. I believe it is at the heart of the matter for where mankind is at today, on the brink of something great or terrible. Or is it REALLY all just meaningless? (What would REALLY mean in that case? ;) Not to me it isn't. I'm all for not exterminating ourselves and I've got grandchildren to prove it. Congratulations (honestly). However, your having grandchildren shows that you BELIEVE IN not exterminating ourselves, but it doesn't PROVE that we SHOULD NOT exterminate ourselves. Isn't that what this Everything stuff is (ultimately ;) all about? We want to solve the modern schizo dilemma of nature vs. grace and bring about wholeness. Sounds like a problem invented in the Vatican. Modern science has attempted to explain away the reality of what man is, both the good and the bad. However, explaining it away doesn't eliminate it. Thus the dichotomy. I'm tired of hearing questions about scientifically *proving* which god is the right one, as if the question is supposed to show that it isn't worth it to pursue the answers to the *ultimate* questions. While we're busy trying to scientifically *prove* which way to go, or show that you can't scientifically prove which way to go (which has been done already cf above thinkers), we're gonna walk off the edge of the cliff. And, pardon my presumptuous risking the danger of a false belief, but that wouldn't be very nice. Scientists never prove anything; they observe, invent theories, collect evidence, test,... Only mathematicians prove things - and then only relative to axioms they assume. I agree. Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. So you say. I see no reason to believe it. Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you really read the modern thinkers and writers, that is what they were saying. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Godel, Monod, Lewis, Schaeffer... I don't think you've read these writers. Russell, Camus, and Sartre were definitely advocates of each person providing their own purpose. Incidentally they hardly qualify as modern anymore. They each came to the edge of the cliff, but they responded in different ways. Some took the leap of faith (!) to say that somehow providing our own purpose is legitimate. Bertrand Russell said this was incredible, but he believed it anyway. We are in the post- modern age now. I hope that people who are trying to be on the cutting edge of theories of everything will go back and pick up from where these thinkers left off. Not just stand on the shoulders of the physics giants, but also the philosophy (and spiritual!) giants. I know that the modern philosophy road is depressing and unlivable. They bring us to the edge of the cliff. It was depressing for people like the young genius Nick Drake who was found dead on his bed in his 20's after a drug overdose, with Camus' Myth of Sysiphus beside him. But we have to face the reality of where the modern age has brought us in order to find the answer before we all exterminate ourselves. ...taking the leap of faith that it is bad to exterminate ourselves. It's not modern existential angst that threatens our existence. It's the religious zealotry of worshippers of the sky god - in Iran, Pakistan, and the bible belt. Solshenitzyn said that the line between good and evil does not run between cultures, beliefs, etc. but right down the center of every human being. (Don't know if I remembered the quote exactly.) In light of modern thought, your argument about the sky god society begs the question of meaning by assuming that they *shouldn't* be miserable and kill each other. This is not a dilemma to pass over lightly. I believe it is at the heart of the matter for where mankind is at today, on the brink of something great or terrible. Or is it REALLY all just meaningless? (What would REALLY mean in that case? ;) Not to me it isn't. I'm all for not exterminating ourselves and I've got grandchildren to prove it. Congratulations (honestly). However, your having grandchildren shows that you BELIEVE IN not exterminating ourselves, but it doesn't PROVE that we SHOULD NOT exterminate ourselves. Isn't that what this Everything stuff is (ultimately ;) all about? We want to solve the modern schizo dilemma of nature vs. grace and bring about wholeness. Sounds like a problem invented in the Vatican. Modern science has attempted to explain away the reality of what man is, both the good and the bad. However, explaining it away doesn't eliminate it. Thus the dichotomy. I'm tired of hearing questions about scientifically *proving* which god is the right one, as if the question is supposed to show that it isn't worth it to pursue the answers to the *ultimate* questions. While we're busy trying to scientifically *prove* which way to go, or show that you can't scientifically prove which way to go (which has been done already cf above thinkers), we're gonna walk off the edge of the cliff. And, pardon my presumptuous risking the danger of a false belief, but that wouldn't be very nice. Scientists never prove anything; they observe, invent theories, collect evidence, test,... Only mathematicians prove things - and then only relative to axioms they assume. I agree. Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. So you say. I see no reason to believe it. Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you really read the modern thinkers and writers, that is what they were saying. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Godel, Monod, Lewis, Schaeffer... I don't think you've read these writers. Russell, Camus, and Sartre were definitely advocates of each person providing their own purpose. Incidentally they hardly qualify as modern anymore. They each came to the edge of the cliff, but they responded in different ways. Some took the leap of faith (!) to say that somehow providing our own purpose is legitimate. Bertrand Russell said this was incredible, but he believed it anyway. We are in the post- modern age now. I hope that people who are trying to be on the cutting edge of theories of everything will go back and pick up from where these thinkers left off. Not just stand on the shoulders of the physics giants, but also the philosophy (and spiritual!) giants. I know that the modern philosophy road is depressing and unlivable. They bring us to the edge of the cliff. It was depressing for people like the young genius Nick Drake who was found dead on his bed in his 20's after a drug overdose, with Camus' Myth of Sysiphus beside him. But we have to face the reality of where the modern age has brought us in order to find the answer before we all exterminate ourselves. ...taking the leap of faith that it is bad to exterminate ourselves. It's not modern existential angst that threatens our existence. It's the religious zealotry of worshippers of the sky god - in Iran, Pakistan, and the bible belt. Solshenitzyn said that the line between good and evil does not run between cultures, beliefs, etc. but right down the center of every human being. (Don't know if I remembered the quote exactly.) In light of modern thought, your argument about the sky god society begs the question of meaning by assuming that they *shouldn't* be miserable and kill each other. This is not a dilemma to pass over lightly. I believe it is at the heart of the matter for where mankind is at today, on the brink of something great or terrible. Or is it REALLY all just meaningless? (What would REALLY mean in that case? ;) Not to me it isn't. I'm all for not exterminating ourselves and I've got grandchildren to prove it. Congratulations (honestly). However, your having grandchildren shows that you BELIEVE IN not exterminating ourselves, but it doesn't PROVE that we SHOULD NOT exterminate ourselves. Isn't that what this Everything stuff is (ultimately ;) all about? We want to solve the modern schizo dilemma of nature vs. grace and bring about wholeness. Sounds like a problem invented in the Vatican. Modern science has attempted to explain away the reality of what man is, both the good and the bad. However, explaining it away doesn't eliminate it. Thus the dichotomy. I'm tired of hearing questions about scientifically *proving* which god is the right one, as if the question is supposed to show that it isn't worth it to pursue the answers to the *ultimate* questions. While we're busy trying to scientifically *prove* which way to go, or show that you can't scientifically prove which way to go (which has been done already cf above thinkers), we're gonna walk off the edge of the cliff. And, pardon my presumptuous risking the danger of a false belief, but that wouldn't be very nice. Scientists never prove anything; they observe, invent theories, collect evidence, test,... Only mathematicians prove things - and then only relative to axioms they assume. I agree. Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. So you say. I see no reason to believe it. Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you really read the modern thinkers and writers, that is what they were saying. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Godel, Monod, Lewis, Schaeffer... I don't think you've read these writers. Russell, Camus, and Sartre were definitely advocates of each person providing their own purpose. Incidentally they hardly qualify as modern anymore. They each came to the edge of the cliff, but they responded in different ways. Some took the leap of faith (!) to say that somehow providing our own purpose is legitimate. Bertrand Russell said this was incredible, but he believed it anyway. We are in the post- modern age now. I don't see how anyone can provide you purpose *except* you. If I say you should do thus and so, it's still your decision to do it or not. If an Imam says you should kill infidels for Allah, it's still up to you decide wether he's right or not. If Bruno says the universe is an illusion of arithmetic, you have make up your own mind. To talk of ultimate purpose is just a diversion to avoid you own responsibility for your own life. Even if Yaweh appeared out of a cloud and told you to spread his gospel - you'd still have to decide whether or not to do it (unless of course he coerced you with threats of hellfire). I hope that people who are trying to be on the cutting edge of theories of everything will go back and pick up from where these thinkers left off. Not just stand on the shoulders of the physics giants, but also the philosophy (and spiritual!) giants. I know that the modern philosophy road is depressing and unlivable. They bring us to the edge of the cliff. It was depressing for people like the young genius Nick Drake who was found dead on his bed in his 20's after a drug overdose, with Camus' Myth of Sysiphus beside him. But we have to face the reality of where the modern age has brought us in order to find the answer before we all exterminate ourselves. ...taking the leap of faith that it is bad to exterminate ourselves. It's not modern existential angst that threatens our existence. It's the religious zealotry of worshippers of the sky god - in Iran, Pakistan, and the bible belt. Solshenitzyn said that the line between good and evil does not run between cultures, beliefs, etc. but right down the center of every human being. (Don't know if I remembered the quote exactly.) A good saying. In light of modern thought, your argument about the sky god society begs the question of meaning by assuming that they *shouldn't* be miserable and kill each other. This is not a dilemma to pass over lightly. I believe it is at the heart of the matter for where mankind is at today, on the brink of something great or terrible. Or is it REALLY all just meaningless? (What would REALLY mean in that case? ;) Not to me it isn't. I'm all for not exterminating ourselves and I've got grandchildren to prove it. Congratulations (honestly). However, your having grandchildren shows that you BELIEVE IN not exterminating ourselves, but it doesn't PROVE that we SHOULD NOT exterminate ourselves. I can live without proof of that. I do in everything else. Isn't that what this Everything stuff is (ultimately ;) all about? We want to solve the modern schizo dilemma of nature vs. grace and bring about wholeness. Sounds like a problem invented in the Vatican. Modern science has attempted to explain away the reality of what man is, both the good and the bad. However, explaining it away doesn't eliminate it. Thus the dichotomy. On the contrary science has explicated the evolutionary basis of good and bad. Why we think some things are good and some bad. Why there are societal rules and why not everyone obeys them. Try reading some writers that *are* modern: The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley, The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom , Game Theory Evolving by Ginitis, Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett. I'm tired of hearing questions about scientifically *proving* which god is the right one, as if the question is supposed to show that it isn't worth it to pursue the answers to the *ultimate* questions. While we're busy trying to scientifically *prove* which way to go, or show that you can't scientifically prove which way to go (which has been done already cf above thinkers), we're gonna walk off the edge of the cliff. And, pardon my presumptuous risking the danger of a false belief, but that wouldn't be very nice. Scientists never prove anything; they observe, invent theories, collect evidence, test,... Only mathematicians prove things - and
RE: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the question to elicit it. Brent Meeker Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing on the truth. Stathis Papaioannou Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus, meaning is either limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is without basis (the Noble Lie). If you really read the modern philosophers seriously this is their conclusion. Of course there is a third possible answer to this question: Meaning is based on a source outside of ourselves, by making connections with others based on such ideals as honour and obligation (a quote I read from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a Starbucks coffee cup this morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such ideals as simply sentiments, debunking them on a surface level (which is the only level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in his lectures on The Abolition of Man. And indeed, without such ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton of his true self. Tom You seem to keep arguing that it wouldn't be very nice if there were no ultimate meaning. Is there any actual evidence that this alleged meaning exists? For example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in the Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief in the Sky God is true? Stathis Papaioannou _ I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you really read the modern thinkers and writers, that is what they were saying. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Godel, Monod, Lewis, Schaeffer... I hope that people who are trying to be on the cutting edge of theories of everything will go back and pick up from where these thinkers left off. Not just stand on the shoulders of the physics giants, but also the philosophy (and spiritual!) giants. I know that the modern philosophy road is depressing and unlivable. They bring us to the edge of the cliff. It was depressing for people like the young genius Nick Drake who was found dead on his bed in his 20's after a drug overdose, with Camus' Myth of Sysiphus beside him. But we have to face the reality of where the modern age has brought us in order to find the answer before we all exterminate ourselves. ...taking the leap of faith that it is bad to exterminate ourselves. In light of modern thought, your argument about the sky god society begs the question of meaning by assuming that they *shouldn't* be miserable and kill each other. This is not a dilemma to pass over lightly. I believe it is at the heart of the matter for where mankind is at today, on the brink of something great or terrible. Or is it REALLY all just meaningless? (What would REALLY mean in that case? ;) Isn't that what this Everything stuff is (ultimately ;) all about? We want to solve the modern schizo dilemma of nature vs. grace and bring about wholeness. I'm tired of hearing
RE: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter.Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? For the majority of people, I think they would agree with Nagel that it will be the case, and agree with Nagel that it doesn't matter.Stathis Papaioannou _ Personalize your Live.com homepage with the news, weather, and photos you care about. http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx?icid=T001MSN30A0701 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? They've really really screwed up? Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
