Bruno, mea culpa. - My slip is showing. I could not eliminate entirely the brainwashing I got in college for the figment of 'natural sciences' - no matter how long ago that was. So: please never mind if I go with Dr. Johnson's toe "that REALLY hurt" and cannot get over my experience of having been hungry.
There is another question (from the other side of the coin in this discussion???) Why do we always mention "DIGITAL"? it reminds us to that embryonic contraption of our binary computer we have been using over the past 1/2 century. Even if we 'assume' a million of them in concert. I assume a better way than using this unidentified - so called - *'electricity'* with its 2 poles only - facilitating the 'binary' effect. I wrote a sci-fi with characters using some driving force with 3 poles (still a measly one-step up) and physicists turned upside down with "objective" questions (I had no answers). That was at the very end of the last millennium. I also hinted to the English twentyfourary computing system (41ary in Hungarian) called language, driven by a so far 'physically' *unidentified*driving force - *mentality?* - but applied with pretty good efficiency so far. And I don't even consider this the ultimate. I wanted to ask several times what kind of 'system' and 'driving' is assumed for the Loebian(?), the Universal computing? Is there any? and this continues into a more involved one: I, as a 'universal computer' (god?) am driven *by what* in my *computing*? What does my mentality assumedly apply beyond that 6Wmin or so keeping the neurons biologically alive? John M On 4/12/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > John, > > On 12 Apr 2010, at 16:31, John Mikes wrote: > > To Jason's fantasy-contest (just imagine and put it as 'reality?) upon > his > > > > > > John, Jason did not *imagine* and then put as *real*. Instead, he was > *assuming* and then *deriving* consequences. You talk like if we could ever > know for sure anything objective. But sciences are collection of > beliefs/theories/assumption/hypothesis/postulates, and if a belief is true, > we cannot never know it as such. > > > What we can know does not belong to the scientific discourse, be it the > existence of god, or of headache. > We can make theories about those non communicable knowledge. > Yet, such theories about knowledge are beliefs, not knowledge. They may be > false. > > > > > > > *> In an uploaded state you could spend all day eating from an unlimited > buffet > > of any food you could think of (and more) and get neither full nor fat. > * > ** > > > > Well the Romans did that. Eating all the day, even days after days, without > stopping. Just vomit after the meal! > > > > > > I have a memory of the same, when I had nothing to eat, was miserable and > hungry during WWII and *'dreamed'* about delicious food... > > Not a good memory though > > > > > > I think I can understand, having known many people having survive that > period. But of course Jason was not talking about a human imagining eating, > but about an uploaded human in a virtual environment. (That is possible > assuming digital mechanism). > > > Now, if it has been completely uploaded with a genuine virtual body: Jason > is correct when saying that he *may* have an unlimited buffet, but is, > strictly speaking wrong that he can enjoy it, without bringing modifications > and changes in its 'virtual' body and brain, so as to be able to appreciate > it without vomiting in the virtual reality! > > > But this is irrelevant for Jason point, to be sure. > > > Nevertheless, this points on the fact that one day we will almost all > become virtual, for the purely economical reason that virtual food and life > will be less expensive that carbon based stuff. And more easily spreadable > in the galaxy. With some hope we can make Earth a Carbon Museum. > > > This will not prove that mechanism is true. It will just be the time to > hope it to be true. > > > Of course, we are already *arithmetical *(by UDA). "Arithmetical" = > virtual and executed by the elementary arithmetical dovetailing, which > exists provably so in elementary arithmetic (assuming comp). And this is > refutable, given that the laws of physics become completely derivable from > number theory. > > > If you want, roughly speaking: sciences = sharable and correctable third > person beliefs. Religion = non communicable personal knowledge. > Now, *in* the theory "mechanism", you can *prove *many theorems about the > relations between beliefs and knowledge, and between science and religion. > But proving a proposition concerning reality does not make it true. It > makes it only a theorem in a theory, which we can never know to be true. > Even if that very theory gives the correct mass of the Higgs boson with one > billion correct decimals, this will not make it possible to *know* the > mass of the boson, *as such*. We can know it only in the serendipitously > Theatetical sense, that we believe in a theory/machine, and it happens that > it is correct/self-referentially-correct. > > > > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.