On 02 Jan 2015, at 21:40, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Define telepathy, telekinesis, and remote viewing.
No. Buy a dictionary, if you're still confused after that I'll try
to help you out but first you'll need to define define.
> So we don't have a bet,
I can't say I'm surprised, I've been offering this bet at the
beginning of the year for over a decade but even the staunchest
believer in the paranormal always chickens out when asked to put his
money where his mouth is.
It is just ridiculous. I am pretty sure that no journals will publish
a confirmation of string theory, but this does not imply that string
theory is not serious, nor false.
And the frontier of discipline are not an absolute, like the dream
lucid phenomenon exemplified.
> BTW, why sending this to the list. I have never heard people
defending para-psy.
Don't you remember Craig Weinberg? And my attack on parapsychology
upset you so much you called me a bigot.
It was the non validity of your type of argumentation that might have
upset me.
Here, you confuse ~[]p with []~p.
> most scienstist practice argument of authority, given that they
believe or not a paper just by the title of a journal
Most scientists believe in reputation and in induction, so even if
they have not personally duplicated the exparament they think that
the numbers published in Science or Nature or Physical Review
Letters are probably correct. But things would be quite different if
experimental results were printed on a processed dead tree in a
fifth rate "science journal" that nobody has ever heard of, or worse
just data on a website run by somebody nobody has heard of, or if
they have wished they hadn't. I know how to type too, I could easily
start a website saying perpetual motion is possible and even provide
results of experiments that I say I have performed supporting my
claim. It wouldn't take me 20 minutes.
I might add that with the exception of religion, a closely related
delusion, no area of human activity has been as riddled with as much
fraud as psi or ESP or spiritualism or whatever buzzword is in
fashion today for that drivel.
So why even talk about them? especially that nobody defend the
paranormal in this list. Even Craig did not, as far as I remember. He
might use paranormal in his website, to illustrate some of his point,
but here we use only logic and reason.
> the interesting question is what is the nature of God: a thing, a
person, a mathematical reality, etc.
It is none of those things, "God" is a 3 letter ASCII sequence with
the binary value of 01000111 01101111 01100100. And I have to
disagree with you, I don't find that very interesting.
If you quoted the whole paragraph, it is clear that one have adopted
the original general definition, where God is, by definition, the
thing which makes you conscious in a(n) apparent universe.
> atheists are ally to the institutionalized religion.
And up is down and black is white and atheism is just a slight
variation of Christianity.
But it is trivial that you illustrate this very well, by being unable
to change your notion of God, and get stuck on the fairy tale notion,
like the fundamentalist christians.
And then atheists have the same faith in material substances.
I have also clearly realize that you are really unaware of Plato, and
its rational attempt to understand the nature of reality.
> You really seem to act that a bishop of religious atheism,
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
Then explain me why you defend the idea that God is what the
fundamentalist christian talk about, and nothing else.
Why don't you mock people for believing in Earth? An infinite flat
surface is surely a stupid idea.
No, for Earth, you have no problem to accept that the notion evolve.
Earth is flat. Oh... no, it is round. OK. Why not: God is an
omniscient person. Oh no God is not omniscient and might be not a
person. Etc.
> Do you believe in a PRIMARY physical universe? Or are you
agnostic on this?
I can't answer that until I understand the question. I know what you
mean by "primary", it's a brute fact, the end of a long chain of
"why?" questions,
OK. It is what we think need to be assume. With computationalism, we
know today that we don't need to assume more than the RA axioms,
making numbers and their basic laws primary.
but I'm a little fuzzy about "physical universe", and I don't want
definitions I want examples.
The key was "primary". You can replace "universe" by space-time,
concrete solution of Einstein equation, corrected by some quantum
precision.
Are only nouns part of the physical universe or are adjectives and
adverbs part of it too?
It is not quite relevant.
Are only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... primary? or should we also insist that
addition and multiplication are primary.
That needs to be clarified when we present and use the theory, but is
a 1004 fallacy at this (low) stage in the debate.
Are quarks or superstrings part of the physical universe? Is
information part of the physical universe? Are thoughts part of the
physical universe? Are the integers part of the physical universe?
What about the Real Numbers or Complex Numbers? And if all these
things are part of the physical universe you need to give me at
least one example of something that isn't.
You don't answer the question. You just add new questions. Personnally
I don't see how a complex numbers, or an integer can be considered
physical at all.
By physical universe, I mean what is described in the book of physics.
If it helps you you can define it by the space-time + the bosons and
fermions. And the question becomes: should we assume such things exist
necessarly at the start, or can we derive the necessity of space-time
and bosons and fermions from simpler non physical hypotheses.
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.
