On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:16, meekerdb wrote:
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]>
wrote:
On 10/8/2014 5:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb <[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?
You reply to Kim, I think. But it is OK.
No such God does not exist in the UD, as such, there is no God (unless
change of definition) in the sigma_1 arithmetical truth. But of
course, there is no galaxies either, nor quarks or electrons.
So the interesting is are there appearance of such things, like quark
or gods. Are there direct or indirect effects, and what can we detect
them. In case of gods, if we detect them we can compare with the
sacred texts. Influence y humans being honest self-introspectors, it
makes sense we discovered some truth in there too. As I have
illustrated, Plotinus theory of consciousness and matter is close to
the comp one, which is itslef close to QM without collapse.
And doesn't the egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist
necessarily?
You see it that way, and yes, like the mother of god, those god seems
to have quite a character.
But may be it is just humans who anthropomophize God a little too
much. Why again do you refer to the revelation, we are scientist here,
we do not invoke personal experience, only argue on repeatable facts,
theories, logics, etc.
As well as all the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu
gods...
We can always compare, the net of of the phi_i in arithmetic, with the
phi_phi_i, etc. has some similarities with Indra net. Then, reading
serious theologian, even if poetical and old, you can see that
hinduism is close to comp, in the understanding the hardness of
avoiding reincarnation, once incarnated.
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.
You are replying to Jason, here, I think. I agree that it might be
wishful thinking. But Plato has some point about God = good, and I
like to say that truth is the worst except for all the lies. God might
be not good, but as good as possible, like it could be not omniscient,
nor omnipotent, but circulated along the tradeoff between them.
It might depend partially of us.
John K. Clark would correctly ask, who do you mean by "us".
I mean, me, and you. The humans, and all Löbian numbers. In their
first person sense.
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?
I have solved in great part the problem of the logic of
"certainty" (the Probability one), and if it is enough quantum like,
we get the pythagorean complex probabilities from the probability 1
and 0. The "P = 1" should behave like projection in linear space (this
we already have thanks to the p -> []<>p, and the []p -> p) in the Z1*
logic (but also X1* and S4Grz1), but we lack the phase, and a lot of
works remains.
Keep in mind that my goal has been to explain why the mind-body
problem is not solved by comp, but that with comp we can reformulate a
part of it. And we get the distinction between quanta and qalia, on
which physics still fail.
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"?
That depends of your partner. And of you. Love is logic or divorce,
nowadays.
Bruno
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.
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.
