On 19 Oct 2014, at 02:36, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a badly posed
question,
>> I don't think so, it may or may not have a answer, nobody knows,
but it's a perfectly clear unambiguous question. And if not from
nothing science can at least provide a pretty good road map to
explain how something came from *almost* nothing. And that's not a
bad days work.
> You miss the point that the current explanation fails to explain
three important things: matter (where does it comes from,
Oh for heaven's sake, read Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from
Nothing", or at least read some book on Cosmology written in the
last 20 years.
I read a lot of book in cosmology. Make your point.
> the quantum vacuum explanation assumes a lot
It assumes that nothing at least has the potential to produce
something, what is the alternative?
It assumes quantum nothingness, which is known to be already Turing
complete. But digital mechanism, alias computationalism (alias comp)
implies a simpler notion of nothingness, and the quantum nothingness
must be derived from it.
Do you want science to explain how noting could produce something
even if the nothing doesn't even have the potential to produce
something? Don't you think that may be just a tad unreasonable?
We can't extract anything from nothing. We need to suppose at least
one Turing universal system. But assuming the quantum nothingness is
assuming too much, and could only be in need to be assumed (that is,
primitive) if computationalism is false.
And whatever misgivings you may have about science failing to fully
explain some subtlety remember that the God theory can explain
absolutely positively NOTHING, zero zilch nada goose egg.
There is no God theory. We agreed on this already. To assume God in a
theory is as much ridiculous than to assume a physical universe when
wanting to explain where a physical universe comes from. We can assume
it at the meta-level, for the motivation, but not in the theory, to
avoid triviality or infinite regress.
The theory says God made stuff, however when asked how He did it the
theory says I don't have the slightest idea.
Read Plotinus. God did not made stuff in the greek theologies. You
come back with the popular superstition.
But then you can just skip the middle man, you don't need God to
say "I don't know". So what's the point of God?
The problem we try to solve.
> consciousness
But the God theory can't explain consciousness either,
Which God theory. I have read many of them. No serious theology would
use God as an explanation of matter. In plotinus, and in machine's
theology, matter is a soul production/emanation. This is made
mathematically precise and testable with the arithmetical hypostases.
You don't need the step 3 to understand that, just a bit ofr computer
science and arithmetic.
or anything else for that matter; and if consciousness is a
fundamental property, as I think it probably is, then there is
nothing to explain, it's just the way data feels like when it is
being processed.
How do you localize it, even relatively. You are using the identity
thesis incompatible with both QM and computationalism.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
