Hi Bruno Marchal But those mechanims are just mechanisms. They do not know what they do, that knowing combined with choice of what to do being another description of intelligence, which is what makes a creator greater than his creations.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 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: 2012-09-12, 13:07:32 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Any creator has to be greater than his creations. Why? The Universal Dovetailer, is smaller than what it does, and what it created. The Mandelbrot program is very small, but it "creates" the most complex object, full or subtle mixing of order and randomness. The complexity of the universal machine gives a threshold above which objects have more complex behavior than their description, somehow. It is a surprising, but known phenomenon (by logicians and computer scientist) that arithmetic, despite very simple elementary beings (0, and its successors), and laws operating on them, addition and multiplication, is full of complex mathematical processes, unsolvable or very hard problems, etc. Just think about the distribution of the prime numbers, or inform yourself. In arithmetic, above universality, the creators are all overwhelmed by their creation. They can even lost themselves in them. This can be also compared to Plotinus, where the ONE is fundamentally simple, and can't help itself not letting emanating from itself, the NOUS, Plato "universal intelligence", which put order on Platonia, but also makes some mess, and then the inner god, the universal soul, does not help, and it can hurt. If we ant keep the fundamental principle on God, like being responsible for our existence, being unameable, then with comp there is a God, but It is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, apparently. Divine knowledge is a body freezer. The point is that God cannot be used as an explanation of whay we are here, if it is more complex than its creation. I agree with the others on this. It might be that the price to pay for any relative potence is a selective amnesia and/or consciousness differentiation, like in self-multiplication (amoeba, WM-duplication, etc.). I like to quote Sri Aurobindo here: What, you ask, was the beginning of it all? And it is this ... Existence that multiplied itself For sheer delight of being And plunged into numberless trillions of forms So that it might Find Itself Innumerably (Aurobindo) 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, 14:55:35 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:29, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> Intelligence is by (my) definition an autonomous function, >> so over-layers are not only forbidden, they are not needed. >> >> But God does have to follow laws he already created. >> If you jump off of a building you will fall to your death. >> >> I'm missing a possible problem there. > > You say that order in the universe is evidence of an intelligent > designer but you don't say that order in the intelligent designer is > evidence of a super-intelligent designer who designed him. If you say > the designer was not himself designed then why not also say the > universe was not itself designed? > It is a good point. Craig made a similar one. You need God being conceptually simpler than its creation, to get something looking like an explanation. I think this is what has motivated Plotinus to put the ONE (described mainly as the SIMPLE by Plotinus) above the NOUS, which is already the MANY, very rich intelligible worlds of the ideas. With comp this is captured by the difference between the factual simple truth, like Ex( s(0)+x = s(s(s(0))) ), and the intelligible truth, which in arithmetic will concerned provability predicate by machine, using G?el's arithmetical predicate beweisbar(x). The simple "cause" is the number together with their additive and multiplicative laws, the many is the complex digital machine appearing from those laws, and their possible histories and coupling with other universal machines. Bruno > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > 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. 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.
