I am sorry if my poorly chosen words irritated you, that was
the farthest from my intentions. I can see, they did.

In arguments (other lists) with religious zealots an idea popped
up in my mind about that (what you objected to) 'physicalistic'
*translation* of heaven, hell, eternity and judgement etc., all
in the phraseology of this list (which is far from being understood
i.e. automatic in my different foundational knowledge-base ) -
about not the underlying sciences, rather the mindset of - yes - the
advanced physicists, who are 'beyond' the classical(?), our conventionally
developed memes, yet may still be within the age-old ways of human thinking
which lurk in the back of the minds.
> You mean classical logic? I don't think so.<
No, I don't mean 'logic'. I meant evolutionary thinking within the "western"
culture. (You may argue that it belongs into it, I have no
After your interesting survey of the pertinent cultural history
(thank you) you concluded - and I fully agree:
> You raise interesting question but I thing it would be >premature to
really tackle that now.

Of course one cannot draw strict borders between coexisting cultures, there
is more crossfertilization than is obvious, the common anthropological
origins/ways of human (mental as well) evolution are undeniable.

My post was the idea (and questioning) of the infiltration of the
'historically evolved' memes into a different worldview (which I called
incorrectly(?) 'physicalistic') and its (odd) ways of "expression", i.e.
language, -  not as you asked:
> Is it a western or eastern type of *behavior* ?  ;-)
Finally to your question:
>What are you asking for?< -
I am not asking FOR, I am asking a question, seeking opinions.

I got yours, thank you

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

> At 11:03 27/04/04 -0400, John M wrote:
> >Bruno:
> >I really TRY to catch up with the discussions -
> Thanks for telling.
> >however I can't help feeling
> >that what's going on is a physicalistic (?)
> I guess you are trying to provoke me here, isn't it?
> (I mean you are aware that I pretend (at least) that physics
> could be reducible to "machine's sychology/theology/biology/
> number theory", etc. This is hardly physicalistic).
> >*translation*
> >of Judeo-Christian theology: whe we die, we (soul?) transfer > >to the
Dear Good Lord's Heaven/Paradise (= called a 1000
> >different planets) - sometimes expressed as quantum
> >imortality...(of the soul?)
> >Then again, just like in the Christian myth, in heaven
> > everybody (including God) speaks the one human language > >we know (or
> You mean classical logic? I don't think so. You could read the > nice book
by I. M. Bochenski (translated in english in 1961,  >University of Notre
Dame Press): A History of Formal Logic.  >It contains a large chapter on the
logics, epistemology and
 >metaphysics of India,before and after Chr. It could change
 >your mind on this point. Also quite astonishing in that regard  >is the
book by Th. Stcherbatsky: Buddhist Logic. Comp itself
>(arguably) has appeared in the east a very long time before
> Plato, as most analysis of the heaven and hell concepts.
> (Reference in "Conscience & Mecanisme").
> Remember also Giordiano Bruno who has been burned by the >Church for his
questions and imaginations; (he was an explicit
> "many worlder" in the form of other planet with life form).
> You raise interesting question but I thing it would be >premature to
really tackle that now.
> >Everything
> >is in the pattern of our terrestrial physical taste and comp .
> >imagination.
> >Maybe we get to hell: the mathematically illiterate planet?
> At least I put the carts on the table: Church Turing Post >Markov ...
thesis, + a minimal amount of arithmetical realism, >+ that special act on f
aith in front of a "medical operation".
> And the game is just to see where all that could lead with >respect to
some unsolved fundamental question.
> >Can't we do better?
> ... and then I point on the fact, about which I have probably
>underestimated the startlingness, that, thanks to some  works >done by ...
Godel, ..., Solovay, we can quasi-literally ask the >opinion of *the* sound
classical universal machines on that >question. In some sense I "eliminate"
the act of faith by just >interviewing the machine. What are you asking for?
> Look, I promise to Kory a hopefully readable account of what I see as an
> obvious (but necessarily a little bit technical) mathematical/physical
> confirmation of comp. It is a modest confirmation in the sense that it
> leads quickly to many open mathematical problems, a sequence of
> conjectures but also a real path from bit to qubit, should comp be true.
> I finish by a question.
> Because we are about to interview the UM on a possible measure
> existing on its (closer) consistent extensions, it is natural
> to ask her if she *do* have a consistent extension.
> Now on *that* question, the UM remains silent, always.
> Is it a western or eastern type of behavior ?  ;-)
> Is is not a little bit like the thundering silence of Vimalakirti?
> ;-)
> Bruno

Reply via email to