On 05 Jan 2015, at 06:04, Kim Jones wrote:
On 5 Jan 2015, at 2:57 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04 Jan 2015, at 00:30, Kim Jones wrote:
On 4 Jan 2015, at 2:47 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good.
Only the devil should be feared. (between us).
Is the devil "not-God"?
Yes, we can say that in the Platonic context where the God is The
Truth. Then the Devil is the False.
Makes sense. Truly fascinating. We "fear the false", then. I think
the power of The False is that it can somehow dissimulate itself.
One is likely to mistake The False for The Truth. Awareness of this
pitfall means we fear our own weakness, our own tendency to get a
mistaken belief about something, yes? This must be intuitive
knowledge that is part of a racial memory or something.
I related to the imitation of all consistent universal machine (rich
enough in cognitive abilities, like PA, ZF, ZF+kappa, etc, to know she
is universal).
Those machine can see that it is consistent that they are
inconsistent. They are consistent, and thus never meet the false, but
it is everywhere possible that they meet it, a bit like the dream
argument implies it is in principle possible that you wake up in a
different reality.
As such it does not "exist" in Platonia, but it can "almost exist"
in the mind of the existing creature, and operate from there. This
is due to the existence of false, yet consistent, proposition,
relatively to "models" or "local realities".
But surely, The False exists?
False proposition exists, but, well, thanks to God, they are not true,
and thus not realized in any reality.
But in the cul-de-sac world, false is "necessary", which still does
not lead you to meet false, but just say trivially that false exists
in all your consistent extensions (trivially, because there are none
in a cul-de-sac world).
Or, when we think we have the devil by the horns, we are really
being gored by our own fear of....?
pain, suffering, high disagreement.
Is it not that "fear of the devil" is the same as the fear of God
(in some sense)?
At the conceptual level, yes. Because once you have one, you have
the other.
Dualism. But is The False equivalent to "evil".
Keep in mind that the general notion of false (and true) cannot be
defined by the machine.
here I "bet" that "false" and "evil" are sort of cousins.
But the evil can be small, and useful for some one, like when a spider
behaves like an ant, to make believe a bird that she is not edible.
Most people talk about "good vs evil" which may or may not
correspond to "Truth vs False".
But the border between True and False, in arithmetic, is already like
the border of In and OUT of the Mandelbrot set. It is constructively
unclear, so to speak.
Good, and evil is even more complex, with absolute and relative part
intermixed. It is a sort of platonistic descendent of True and False.
I think evil is much worse in some way than simple falsity. In
fact, I would say that evil is not really le faux. Evil is le mal,
non?
Literally, yes. But we are trying a theory. False is evil in the
following sense: if your altimeter statement "we are 5 miles above the
ground" is false, you go to a catastrophe.
Or, if you tell the false satement "this will cure your illness", to
ill people, it might saves some people by placebo, but it might lead
to catastrophes.
We are not ideal machine, because we have a way to revised our
beliefs, but this makes the "cul-de-sac world" into more fuzzy
structures, and it transforms the simple inexisting false into
relatively happening shit. It is the price of being able to be wrong,
yet still locally consistent. This leads to pain.
But we don't live at that conceptual level,
How so? Are you saying we are somehow obliged to view the world as
committed dualists?
From inside, we have no choice (we the Löbian entities). Matter and
mind obey different logics, the one get multiplied, and we develop ego
and personal identities which make us feel not being the others. We
get dualism, octalism and all numbers and cardinals can give some -ism.
Can't we TRY to live at a conceptual level where we notice the way
in which things are the same, rather than continually dwell on how
things are different?
I think that is what mathematician do, or contemplate.
Art can provide shortcuts, often ephemary and hard to share.
There are also spiritual medication, like Tabernanthe iboga, but it is
not well seen in our "culture", always due to the usual religious dogma.
and you better fear an hammer on the finger (example of bad, that
is what the devil practically does) than a cup of coffee (as
example of good, what God practically does).
Sure
Of course I assume the platonist link between God and Good here.
that is not clear at all when you interview the universal machine
(even with good being defined through self-survival ability).
Ahhhhhhhhh.....the Truth is a survivor! Even more interesting. But
there can be levels of self-survival ability,
Yes, and that is the "concrete problem": how much our lives, or even
our physical reality, relies on lies (in arithmetic). Arithmetic is
full of life, I said once, but it is full of lies. Normally lies have
finite life time, which makes true surviving in the limit. (To be
short).
yet Truth is surely an Absolute, the zero. Why would a UM not
experience a strong link between God and Good?
I would say they do, but prefer to forget it to make it easier for her
to steal your money, and make high benefits in the short run.
Who or what IS this devil character anyway? Is such a concept
necessary?
I'm afraid yes, in its most primitive sense of bad.
OK. But I'm still hitched on the devil, the bad, the false or
whatever as something which doesn't exist in Platonia, as you wrote
earlier. The very notions of Truth and False are platonic. How can
ideas, concepts NOT reside in Platonia?
Just for the technical reason that I have associated God with the set
of true sentences. Of course the notion of false propositions,
consistency, inconsistency, exist in Platonia, but are not realized
through the truth. They remains fiction. Contrary to what many people
say recurrently in this list: not every world exist, not every
proposition are true.
There is no triangular square in Platonia, even if you have universal
numbers with Alzheimer having sort of hallucination of triangular
square. With computationalism, God is simple, but highly structured.
As you say, for a platonist the ideas exist, and for a
computationalists, they all have an infinity of Gödel numbers, or
relative programs, or relative engrams, relative to some universal
number(s). With computationalism, you cannot escape the fact that
some solution of diophantine equations incarnate hellish experiences.
I, like you, am OK with cannabis, but I think I might stay away from
these diophantine equations. I don't really want to have any hellish
experiences.....
That is why we still are in a lucky level of reality (when alive)
where we have some control. You can choose, more or the less, to do
alpinism or not. Alpinism can make higher the possibility of an
hellish experience, a bit like salvia, except that with alpinism the
end can be fatal.
Near and after "death", the question is more complex. The faith "Giod
is Good" can give the courage for the exploration with logic, computer
or medication, or art.
Then the higher level devil is just a poetical view of the idea of
the "moral bad thing", or even the more general idea, and easier to
define (as non linked to moral issue) that in a reality where you
can augment the good for everybody, i.e. harm reduction for
everybody, there will be situations where individuals or groups of
individuals can accelerate the augmentation of their good by
deceiving those outside the group: it is stupid in the sense of
going from a win/win game to a win-a-lot/loss-a-lot game, but it
makes sense locally, and nature does that a lot of times itself.
That's really scary, isn't it? So when someone rips you off, you can
console yourself by saying they were only imitating Nature.
I don't think so. You should better run, and revise your strategy.
It would as much consolating than saying the guy who rips you was just
following schroedinger equation, which might be true, but not in any
relevant way, and even actually false at the relevant level: the same
guy would have rip you even when implemented in some other universal
numbers are the relevant level.
It is a sort of constant prisoner dilemma. It is part of the nature
of life, at the border between the computable and the non-
computable. (from 3-1p: the sigma_1 leafs of the universal
dovetailer versus its "complement" in arithmetic).
It is an intrinsic weakness of God,
Only Bruno Marchal would have the gall to write this! I love it! I'm
so glad God has an intrinsic weakness. Kind of de-Gods him/her/it a
bit.
Once you are serious on God, you re quickly open to the idea that God
is not omnipotent, not omniscient, that it did not made the human in
its own image. And things like that. Not only tehere are no evidence,
but, as Grimm has convince me, the notion of omniscience is already
self-contradictory or vacuous.
It can't make the devil disappear,
Ecoute, mon ami. Dieu a fait le diable, non?
Perhaps, but not necessarily intentionally. Very complex question.
What is all that tra la la about serpents in gardens etc. Where did
this serpent satané arise from? Fallen angel my foot! God put the
snake there on purpose! God has LIED to Man about the nature and the
purpose of the snake. Unless God is not running the show?
Well, for a platonist God run the show, almost by definition.
Why snakes?
Incredibly enough, someone asked me this some days ago when talking
about "delirium tremens" ((with the alcohol withdrawal): why does
delirium tremens makes people seeing insects, lizards and snakes? I
told him I thought it was more like pink elephants, and according to
him, most people having delirium tremens see insects and snakes?
Perhaps those animals are related to ancestral fear, and we might have
representation of them in our common "unconscious" (inherited) library
of possible fear and threats. It makes sense, as clearly insects
already can recognize prey and predators instinctively.
The bad is only what harm us, and the moral bad is when we harm people
"sufficiently close to us" for special (collective or individual)
interest.
When we get more spiritual, we extend the range of entities in which
we can recognize ourselves, i.e the diameter of that "sufficiently
close", and that makes us stopping harming them or reducing the harms.
Like cows, dolphins, etc.
Bruno
K
but It can help to make it apparent, and locally controllable, when
tolerated in some proportion, or through representations.
<>[]f (G*)
<><>f (Z1*)
Bruno
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
