On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:42, Roger wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

Nothing is for sure, all I can quote are probabilties. The improbability of life (based on Hoyle's argument about the humungous improbability of the C atom being created by chance) suggests to me at least that a comp is highly improbable if it is to emulated a living brain.

No problem. It just means that you believe that the brain cannot be replaced by a computer, even in principle.




But maybe there still exist simpler possibilities. Unlikely, but I'll grant that.

I thought that Hoyle's argument, succeeded by the fine-tuning of the universe argument, was well known.
Here's just one version of it, from

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html


The Big-bang
The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light- years. Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001 The usual atheist argument against the above is that God just kept inventing universes until

 he got one that worked.

I think it odd that only such an improbable universe would support life (which needs carbon in our case).

Further, that the more improbable something is, the more likely it is that it was more likely created

by some sort of intelligence rather than by chance.

The fact that our universe contains life also is in accord with Leibniz's Best Possible Universe aregument.

With all my respect, that argument is weak for this list, as this list is based on the idea that "everything" is more simple than anything selected in the everything. It is the common point between all of us, but we tolerate the exceptions, actually.

This everything idea suits very well comp, because, by a sort of miracle in math (Church's thesis), we do have a very solid notion of everything, which is both rich and non trivial: the universal dovetailing. The price is that the "selection" occurs all the time, and that it might lead to a physical reality too much rich. But the use of computer science self-reference prevents the working of that last argument, which does not prove comp, but makes its refutability more complex. And QM confirms that self-multiplication.

Advantage: we got an explanation of the origin of the divergence between quanta and qualia, + the physical laws.

Weakness: it transforms a problem of philosophy/theology into math, and current philosophers (or perhaps all of them since day one) hate when scientists walk on their territory, and they are unprepared to do the math for themselves.

Bruno






Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-15, 04:36:42
Subject: Re: Positivism and intelligence


On 14 Aug 2012, at 19:46, Roger wrote:

Hi meekerdb

You're right, random shapes do not show evidence of intelligence.
But the carbon atom, being highly unlikely, does.

This is amazing. Carbon is a natural product (solution of QM) by stars. All atoms are well explained and predictable by QM, itself predictable (normally, with comp) by arithmetic.

Bruno





Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 18:20:16
Subject: Re: Positivism and intelligence

On 8/11/2012 5:56 AM, Roger wrote:


Positivism seems to rule out native intelligence.
I can't see how knowledge could be created on a blank
slate without intelligence.

Or for that matter, how the incredibly unnatural structure
of the carbon atom could have been created somehow
somewhere by mere chance.  Fred Hoyle as I recall said
that it was very unlikely that it was created by chance.

All very unlikely things in my opinion show evidence of
intelligence.

How likely is the shape of Japan?

In order to extract energy from disorder
as life does shows that, like Maxwell's Demon,
some intelligence is required to sort things out.

Life extracts energy by increasing disorder.

Brent


--
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 .

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@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.

Reply via email to