On 03 Jan 2011, at 19:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 03.01.2011 10:26 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 02 Jan 2011, at 17:58, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.01.2011 17:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 02 Jan 2011, at 13:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Remember that with comp, we can never know that we are awake. But
we can always know that we are dreaming or sharing a dream. The
experimental evidences (the quantum) are that we are indeed
sharing a dream.
However, as Chalmers claims this seems to have no practical
differences for a person. Let us say that your theory is true. What
are practical consequences then?
The theoretical and conceptual consequences are that physics is a
branch of machine's theology. And that we can test mechanism
experimentally.
What do you mean by experimentally? Say we have two hypotheses:
1) The Universe consists of atoms/elementary particles/superstrings/
whatever
2) The Universe consists of numbers
How could one distinguish them experimentally?
Mechanism can be tested experimentally. But with mechanism we know
already that the physical world does not consist on numbers. (That's a
good thing given that I have never seen a number in Nature).
I think you have not yet understood the key difference between the
first person views and the third person view on the (non physical)
basic reality.
To test mechanism is conceptually easy (but technically difficult).
Just derive physics from comp (like I illustrate partially in AUDA),
and compare with experimental physics. You can already compare the
logic of observation derive from mechanism with the logic of
observation derived from quantum physics (quantum logic). It fits well.
UDA shows why physics has to be reduced to numbers relations. AUDA
shows how to do it.
UDA is really just a reduction of the mind body problem to the problem
of the origin of the number's beliefs in physical and body-like
realities.
The practical more mundane consequences are that we should come back
to scientific theology and allow modesty and critical skepticism to
be used on the most fundamental matter. This should encourage an
attitude of respect toward any universal machine, and hopefully
encourage such an attitude with respect to our fellow human beings.
But we are a long way from that, as illustrated by the politics of
prohibition. We are living in the most obscurantist period, and this
Do you mean that some time ago the times were less obscurantist? If
yes, could you please tell me when?
From -500 to +500. Roughly speaking. From Pythagorus to the closure
of Plato academy. In intellectual circles, of course.
This is not supposed to be taken too much literally. Since 523,
theology has been abandoned by the academics (against their will of
course) to the political powers. Nothing has changed. We have the
choice between fairy tales theologies or the idea that theology is
necessarily BS (and then the dogma of materialism, which is a pseudo-
theology which tries to make us believe it is "science", making
science an authoritative argument in the fundamental matter).
Science and religion are inseparable, and when you separate them you
get pseudo-science and pseudo-religion, and you get the ten thousand
manipulative tools of the powers driven by the special interest, etc.
is not astonishing given the 1500 years of authoritative arguments in
the field. During Renaissance, the arabs give us only one half of the
greek sciences. The other half is still taboo. The human sciences are
There is a nice book to this end
Lucio Russo, The Forgotten Revolution, How Science Was Born in 300
BC and Why it Had to Be Reborn
Looks nice.
A couple of citations is here:
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/08/quantum-mechanics-and-archimedes.html
Hmm... Looks less nice. The author seems to have a problem with
quantum weirdness. But most quantum weirdness are easy consequences of
mechanism (indeterminacy, non locality, non clonability, parallel
dreams/realities, etc.). He seems to be under the (very common)
Aristotelian spell: the belief in a physical basic universe, the
belief in a creation. With mechanism, once well understood and taking
into account self-limitation results, we could say that there is no
Creator, nor Creation. In Plotinus also, God *and* Matter are outside
the 'being'.
There are only dreaming universal numbers reflecting each others.
Those dreams forms a highly elaborated multi-layered structure, and
their coherence and relative measure depends on the limit of the work
of the UD.
Bruno
sick and inhuman. Agnosticism is not well seen, despite it is the
mark of the scientific inquiry. Humans are still not in the position
to admit that they are ignorant. Fear sellers rule. The practical
consequences is a (slow) change in our mentality. In the long run
this is needed to develop ourself in the galaxy and beyond.
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 [email protected].
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
.
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 [email protected].
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.
