On 10/24/2014 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Oct 2014, at 17:17, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 10/8/2014 5:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 10/8/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in
the
question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for
this
list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's
reason for existence" or "the unprovable truths of arithmetic".
How do you know that? How could you know that.
I read the interview. For example
/D.G.: I'm not a believer, so I'm not in a position to say. First of
all,
it's worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges don't
come
from science but from common features of life. Perhaps the hardest case
for
believers is the Problem of Evil: The question of how a benevolent God
could
allow the existence of evil in the world, both natural evils like
devastating earthquakes and human evils like the Holocaust, has always
been
a great challenge to faith in God. There is, of course, a long history
of
responses to that problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers
(like
me) consider this a major problem, believers have, for the most part,
figured out how to accommodate themselves to it./
It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism. If he were
referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable truths there
would
be no "problem of evil" for that god.
On the contrary, computationalism will relate qualia like pain and evil
related things with what numbers can endure in a fist person
perspective yet
understand that this enduring is ineffable and hard to justify and be
confronted with that very problem.
But under computationlism it's not a problem. The is no presumption
that a
computable world is morally good by human standards.
Under computationalism, all possible worlds and all possible observers
exist and
there's nothing God can do about it. God can no more make certain observers
or
observations not exist than make 2 + 2 = 3. However, a benevolent theistic
god
under computationalism (with access to unlimited computing resources) could
nonetheless "save" beings who existed in other worlds by continuing the
computation of their minds.
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the egomanical, despotic
god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all the gods of Olympus and the Norse
gods and the Hindu gods...
You say "could" as though he had a choice, meaning He's not part of the
computable
world and is not one of the "all possible observers".
He/They are of the all possible observers.
Seems to me that he will have to both save everyone and also torture
everyone in hell.
Some comp theistic gods may do such things, but I think such "evil gods" would be
comparatively rare.
How do you know that? The all powerful, omniscient, beneficent gods seem
absolutely rare.
It might depend partially of us.
John K. Clark would correctly ask, who do you mean by "us".
Of course the solution is fixed out there in the atemporal arithmetical reality, but we
are not *living* there, currently,
Why aren't we living there as well as here? Have you solved the measure
problem?
and so it might concretely depend on us, here and now. There are question which makes no
sense asking God about, we have to do some work before.
I think that ethically, computationalism is close to harm reduction, no proselytism,
investment in education and research. In judgments, proof is mandatory politeness (like
in some jurisdiction, and like Paul Valéry said so well(*)).
Bruno
/(*) /Translation:/ "Remember simply that between humans there is only two relations:
logic or war. Always ask for proofs, proof is the elementary politeness we ought to each
other. If one refuses, remember that you are under attack, and that one will try to
impose you obedience by all means. [With proofs] you will be surprised par the softness
or the charm of anything, you will develop a passion for the passion of an other"
//(Paul Valéry)//./
/
/
/"Rappelez-vous tout simplement qu'entre les hommes il n'existe que deux
relations : la /
/logique ou la guerre. Demandez toujours des preuves, la preuve est la politesse
élémentaire /
/qu'on se doit. Si l'on refuse, souvenez-vous que vous êtes attaqués, et qu'on va vous
faire /
/obéir par tous les moyens. Vous serez pris par la douceur ou par le charme de
n'importe /
/quoi, vous serez passionnés par la passion d'un autre." (Paul Valéry).
/
Sounds like a logicians dream of human relations. Is love "logic" or "war"?
Brent
A priest asked: What is Fate, Master?
And he answered:
It is that which gives a beast of burden its reason for existence.
It is that which men in former times had to bear upon their backs.
It is that which has caused nations to build byways from City to
City upon which carts and coaches pass, and alongside which inns
have come to be built to stave off Hunger, Thirst and Weariness.
And that is Fate? said the priest.
Fate...I thought you said Freight, responded the Master.
That's all right, said the priest. I wanted to know
what Freight was too.
--
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.
