On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:22, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

Yes, and Steve Wolfram  has come up with a similar idea of building
the universe from very small units in "A New Kind of Science."

http://www.wolframscience.com/


Wolfram is not aware of the first person indeterminacy. The idea that the universe is digital is incompatible with the computationalist hypothesis. You might need to study the first person indeterminacy and its consequence to get this.
See this list, or
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Wolfram is still doing the physicalist mistake to believe that a universe can explain consciousness per se. It is more subtle than that, as no machine can know on which computations she belongs, among an infinity of one. he uses implicitly, even for the possible prediction of its digital creature, a supervenience thesis which does not work with computationalism. I think that he just avoid the mind- body problem, in the usual Aristotle science. It is not a new kind of science, it is the old aristotelian metaphysics with some new clothes.

Bruno



Also, the I Ching constructs (taoism) the world combinatorily
from units of yin and yang.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-11, 13:20:45
Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,


On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

If I ever doubt that there is a God,
the regularity of Newton's physics or
the microscopic structure of a snowflake
dispels such doubt.

These show design.
Design cannot be made randomly.
So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature.
I call that God.

That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates
that there must be some superintelligence at work.

OK. And with comp a case can be made that it is the intelligence innate to arithmetic.

Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuP02b_a7Y

It is a succession of different zoom on the Mandelbrot set, which is basically defined by the set of complex number c such that the iteration, starting from z = 0, of z_n = (z_n-1)^2 + c don't diverge.

If you can see intelligent design in a snowflake, I can see intelligent design in the Mandelbrot set, and in the circle too. It abounds in math and in arithmetic.

Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/11/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-10, 13:17:52
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers

Roger,

I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than atheist.

A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on this, but his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a religious believer in a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps.

To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means "I believe in x", and if g means (god exists)

A believer is characterized by Bg
An atheist by B ~g
An agnostic by ~Bg & ~B~g

But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with respect of matter, etc.

Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, which is irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything, which is just another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed clearly.

I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by making clear the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg than to Bm. But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or even a tiny part of it.

Bruno



On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012  Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

> If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on.

A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the wise man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting the planet Uranus is silly, and so is God.

 John K Clark



--
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- 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