On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 9/4/2011 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On 9/4/2011 8:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04.09.2011 07:51 meekerdb said the following: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> If that's what you're trying you're giving aid and comfort to the >>>>> enemy. Every religious fundamentalist in America hates materialism >>>>> and believes in an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes, >>>>> which is responsible for our thoughts and actions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You know, I was raised in the USSR where the official religion was >>>> atheism and materialism. The results were disastrous. >>>> >>>> Hence you could take the existence of people in the USA who "believe in >>>> an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes" positively. After all, >>>> they are working hard and contribute to prosperity. >>>> >>>> In any case, I do not think that the ideology should affect reasoning. >>>> >>> >>> Evgenii, >>> >>> The kind of atheism and materialism which stood as the official religion >>> of the Soviet Union, and that held by most atheists today is naive. The >>> leading scientific explanations for conscious are mechanistic, but taken to >>> its logical end mechanism leads to remarkable conclusions: consciousness is >>> not attached to the body, it survives death of the body, it continues >>> forever, it may be reincarnated into different forms, it may switch between >>> realms. In this respect, science leads directly to something very much like >>> a soul. >>> >>> >>> Only by taking partial theories and over extending them. >>> >> >> If you accept the first few steps of the UDA regarding duplication / >> survivability with clones (digital mechanism), and you accept any of the >> following: 1. the universe is infinitely big, 2. many worlds interpretation, >> 3. string theory landscape, 4. ultimate ensemble or 5. mathematical realism, >> then it can be clearly demonstrated. I think the only reason you call it >> "over extended" is that you are uncomfortable with the conclusion. >> >> >> If by "accept" you mean "believe", I don't accept 2, 3,4, and 5. I >> consider 1 to be an inference from some theories, but I don't necessarily >> accept those theories. When you make a long chain of inferences and arrive >> at a conclusion contrary to experience that is called a reductio ad >> absurdum. Then it is time to review your bets. >> >> > If you accept (believe) the universe is infinitely big then there are other > locations in the universe which have an identical configuration to you in > this moment, > > > That doesn't follow. For example there could be infinite repetitions of a > some other, quite different subset of this universe. The universe would > then be infinite while this part is unique. > > The variations in the cosmos were determined by quantum fluctuations which would seem to lead to a randomized distribution of configurations. > > the whole earth in this moment, the solar system, the local group, the > observable universe. Just as any finite sequence of digits can be found in > the digits of Pi. > > > But not in 1/3. Yet the decimal expansion of 1/3 is infinite. > Since the distribution of matter is determined by quantum fluctuations, I doubt it forms any simplistic repeating pattern like .3333... > Then if you accept that you could be reassembled (and saved from death) > by the appropriate arrangement of atoms (regardless of whether they were the > original or an entirely new set of atoms) then you can see how your > consciousness will survive your death in this universe. > > > I can see how it could be possible (and I thought of that when I was 16) > but I don't believe everything that is possible happens nor do I see any way > to test such a vague hypothesis. > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Similarly, the materialist effort to explain the existence of this >>> universe without invoking God ends up pointing to the existence of something >>> that has no cause, exists timelessly, contains infinite variation (perhaps >>> everything possible), may be identical to the sum of all truth, is >>> everywhere and everything. While not every scientist or person on this list >>> agrees with this, it is the conclusion of any rational effort to explain the >>> fine tuning of this universe. >>> >>> >>> I don't think any scientists agrees with all of that. >>> >> >> 1. Something exists without a cause (Any Platonist believes this. Also, >> it is inconsistent to believe that nothing exists without cause, unless you >> believe something can come from nothing) >> >> >> Most current theories of cosmogony say something like that. >> > > Not out of nothing, but out of the > vacuum<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state>, > which is something. > > > Is it? Can you have less than a vacuum? Isn't it as 'nothing' as can be. > The vacuum warps in response to gravity, it has a relative position in the universe, it is a medium which enables particles to exist and spontaneously form, it has energy and mass, expands, etc. It is hardly an absolute nothing. > Maybe the philosopher/logician's "nothing"; the thing that has no > properties is incoherent, an illegitimate abstraction from the absence of > something to the absence of everything. > > > > >> According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state >>> or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty >>> space",<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#cite_note-Lambrecht-0>and >>> again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some >>> absolutely empty >>> void."<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#cite_note-Ray-1>According >>> to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but >>> instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into >>> and out of existence.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#cite_note-2> >>> >> > > >> >> 2. Exists timelessly (Again, every platonist accepts mathematical truth >> exists timelessly) >> >> >> That is a peculiarly mathematical meaning of "exists". >> > > > Are there really different ways in which something can exist? The way I > see it, either something exists or it does not. > > > > Me to. But to a mathematician, "exists" means a variable takes a value > that satisfies a proposition. > > > > > >> >> >> 3. Contains infinite variation, perhaps everything possible >> (Mathematical truth is infinite in scope, and math contains all possible >> structures, again according to the platonist philosophy of mathematics >> (which is the most popular)) >> >> >> Which cardinality of infinite? All of them? >> > > I don't know. > > >> >> >> 4. Is everywhere and everything (This follows from digital mechanism >> and platonism. Most today are unaware of this of course, but I think if all >> the choices were well defined and described most rational people would >> identify with platonism and finite mechanism.) >> >> >> "Something exists everywhere and everything"? I don't understand what >> is being asserted. Is it a mere tautology? >> >> > All that we see ultimately is part of the same infinite object. > > > Only if "object" is defined as all that exists anywhere - in which case it > is reduced to a tautology. > > > > > >> >> Science isn't about justifying theories. It's about creating models >> that have predictive and explanatory power. >> >> >> > I agree, science is about explanations. > > >> To ask what concept is scientifically justified is to misconceive the >> enterprise. Some theories are better supported by evidence than others. >> Some are contradicted by evidence. That's all. >> >> > That everything exists isn't contradicted by any evidence. > > > But it isn't supported by any either. > > We've argued this before. I gave several pieces of evidence which support the idea. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.