Danny wrote:

To avoid God are we back to some kind of “primitive physical” idea that
there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit
intelligence from emulating it? 

JM:

I suppose 'our intelligence' is part of 'us' and we are part of the "nature
of reality" (whatever that may be, god, or existence, or...).

My grandparents had a cellar with a trap door to descend, a maid-girl came
crying that the door does not open. As it turned out: she was standing on it
when trying to lift it....

(parable for us understanding 'all' we are part of). 

 

 

Bruno asked:

God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself?

JM:

whatever WE decide is our restrictive opinion. Bruno accepted that 'we' are
'god' so mu answer to the question is: NO, I as god do not.

I consider QM a product of the product (etc) of that 'reality' we try to
assign to it. 

(Sorry,Bruno, I do not start from 'numbers' to build up the existence. So
far they stayed unidentified/able upon the many questions I (and others)
asked. They still seem to be - as Bohm said - products of the human
thinking. (See above: product of the product of the pr...etc.)

 

>> I think I agree with you on this.  However, numbers are ultimately
representations of information.  And it seems possible, perhaps probable,
that everything can be reduced to information.  As with most other things,
maybe it is just a matter of perspective. 

 

Bruno:

It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build
universal classical or quantum constructor or computer.
JM:

"Build", or "think about it"? (Alice, the builder?)

 

Bruno:

...I prefer translate the "primitive physical idea" as the idea that there
is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. 

JM:

I like the translation into "idea". It implies that an 'idea' cannot be
responsible for appearances we think to receive in our mind. Appearances are
just that. Our - if you prefer - mind's interpretation of 'something' -
"reality". 

Still: human thinking. 

Question: which one of us (humans) CAN think with anything else than a human
mind? If we accept Bruno's "we are god" then it is a human god. Not capable
of 'building' the existence from the existing existence. (Cf: trapdoor)

 

Danny:

...If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly
argument over semantics. 

JM:

If the answer is 'no' or anything, it IS as well. If somebody 'believes' in
a personal relationship  with any god-phantom halucination based on ANY
selective hearsay assumption, you cannot make him accept (substitute) a
scientific'  scrutiny. (I may elaborate on selective, hearsay, and
assumption, if I must).

 

>>>I disagree and think you misunderstood the point of my original post.  I
don’t really have time to get into it in detail now, but I was really trying
to get outside of any faith-based aspect of the question.  Perhaps the word
God should not be used.  The question I guess boiled down to its essence is
can you have an ensemble theory of any kind (everything exists) that does
not end up having intelligence playing an “interesting” role in the process.
For future reference, when I refer to “God” in a post I will not be
referring to anything relating to personal relationships (in the general
understood sense that I think you meant) or hallucinations, but will be
referring very specifically to an entity capable of emulating or creating in
one manner or another the “universe” we observe, either from a 3rd person
viewpoint or from the 1st person viewpoint.  The question is can you have
ensemble theories without having these entities, and if so, what assumptions
do you have to make about our underlying reality (or the ensemble theory) to
avoid them.

 

I don’t see those types of questions as being exclusive of some type of
tentative scientific scrutiny, but I guess you do or perhaps you thought I
meant something else when I said “God” (despite my defining the term in the
original post). 

 

It may be that I just totally don’t understand you John.  To be honest I
more than occasionally have a difficult time understanding what you are
conveying in your posts.

 

Danny

 

*

I would be happy to see an expansion of what kind of "assumption" Bruno was
mentioning in the last sentence.

 

John M

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Bruno Marchal <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM

Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life

 


Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :

If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno’s
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God?  For the purposes of this
question I’ll define “God” as an entity capable of creating everything that
would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe.




God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself?

To avoid God are we back to some kind of “primitive physical” idea that
there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit
intelligence from emulating it?  




We cannot, knowingly, emulate a first person in any third person way. For
example we can emulate perfectly both the comp and the quantum indeterminacy
.. up to the measurement procedure, which can still be emulate but only by
emulating the observer himself. But this can be done with any classical or
quantum universal machine, but then only serendipitously.
I prefer translate the "primitive physical idea" as the idea that there is a
primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. But this
already contradict the comp hypothesis (for example by the UDA argument, but
you can also look at Plotinus or Proclus).

That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of “universal quantum
constructor”?  




It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build
universal classical or quantum constructor or computer.




Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from
acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? 


Neither math nor physics prohibit this. Math only prohibit universal machine
prover or knower.





How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating
everything?  If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no
intelligent action required), doesn’t it eventually describe intelligence
with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an
“artificial” UD?  




Sure. But why? The UD is needed in an argument. Real platonic UDs are enough
for the rest. Note that this can and should be tested.



If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly
argument over semantics.  




You are quite fuzzy about God, and your basic assumptions. Do you assume a
*primitive* physical universe? 




 I’ll be happy to hear where I’m wrong on all this.  Please be kind, I’ve
been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while!



No problem, but you could be clearer about your assumption, or I am perhaps
missing something.


Bruno



Danny Mayes

 

 

On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:

> I agree with the Russell quote as it stands.  Unendingness is not what
> gives meaning.  The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time
> (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless.  However, the quote 
> makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value.  The real
> problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the
> first place (other than the so-called "irrefutable" first person: 
> "It's all about me").

Why should there be?  Values are relative to people.  Love is our word.  We
invented it to describe what we feel.  Having some Platonic form of LOVE out
there is superfluous.  You're just making up a requirement for "the really
real ding-an-sich" so that you can say God provides it.


You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the chocolate
fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be
explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only
the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating
experience.

Stathis Papaioannou






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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to