Bruno, 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 counter-argument). 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]> To: <[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 not). > > 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 > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >
