Hi Roger, Thank you for the link to Steve Wolfram's new book. What he says in the first few pages is that his new science does away with the need for an all-powerful supernatural being.
However, it does appear that his new science has application to Leibniz's monads as well as the monads of string theory, the Calabi-Yau (compact) Manifolds, CYMs. While I have your attention I would like to mention that the best argument IMO for the need of a god is the Leibniz principle/assumption that god creates the "best" universe. In other words, god is needed to reduce the 3p in its quantum mind to a single physical 1p by always choosing the "best" quantum state from the number available in every single particle interaction in the universe. However, this is not the conventional god who can do anything it wants. In fact the choice of the "best" quantum state to be physical might be handled by a simple algorithm. But given the 'simple' nature of the monads and Wolfram's science of complexity, it seems that some sort of resulting cosmic consciousness might be needed to implement even a simple algorithm. I also thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss CYMs on this list, even though the CYMs are not simple, containing 500 or so topo holes through which constraining flux is wound. Assuming each flux has "n" possible quantum states yields n^500 different possible monad configurations, the so-called string landscape. (n=10 is usually assumed) I also want to mention that Tipler's OMEGA concept applies here. I presume that the quantum mind of god can instantly compute the OMEGA point at the end of time (including the selection process of always choosing the best possible single physical universe)- which IMO amounts to the best possible OMEGA Point(OP). With MWI there is likely to be an infinite number of OPs, which to me seems undesirable and even unlikely. However, in spite of 1p indeterminacy (ie., free will & morality), where the actions of units of physical consciousnesses necessitate continual recomputation of the OMEGA point, I suspect that the laws of nature will maintain a rather fixed, single OP. Instantaneous computation is consistent with your (Roger's) concept of a timeless, unextended god. But I believe the same can be achieved by extended monads in an extended space where each monad instantly maps the entire universe to its interior. Physical experiments with physical Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs) verify the property of instantaneity (ie., the speed of light can have any value including infinity in a BEC), but do not prove that it is done this way by god, or in words I prefer, by the collective action of the BEC monads. As Wolfram says, the collective action of simple elements gives rise to the physical complexities that many attribute to god. Richard On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> 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/ > > 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-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. -- 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.
