On 11 Jan 2015, at 19:14, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Question, Bruno,
Is it theoretically, plausible, to get a verified/testable reaction
from this Platonic database in the sky?
Yes, it is the point of my thesis.
Can you do it with mathematics, physics??
I did it with the mathematical theory of self-reference. I extract the
necessity of a quantum logic from the self-reference logic in the
digital frame imposed by the computationalist hypothesis.
The tehorem prover list the experiemental configuration capable of
testing, well, not really computationalism, but computationalism + the
classical theory of knowledge (called standard and modern by Gerson,
who oppose it to the one by Socrates, but he is wrong, as
incompletness can be used to refute Socrates critics of the Theaetus).
Perhaps the traditional practice of prayer is the least efficacious
means of contact?
For people who does not remember REM dream, or have not meditate on
it, smoking salvia can be very efficacious. Many people have describe
it as a cure for atheism. People can consult the Erowid reports(*), as
this is lived by many atheists, capable of admitting that smoking
salvia can lead to doubting *any* certainty in that domain. A big
advantage of salvia is that it take only 5 minutes. No need of taking
a risk of a six or 12 hours bad trip, and after the experience, you
feel well (unlike alcohol).
But, just assuming computationalism, you can understand the theory
"intellectually". yet, some people near me confess that it was only
after taking salvia that they understood that comp might well be true,
by making you living the doubt with an intensity that most people does
not give to logic and thinking. This is due to the fact that our brain
is hardwired for not taking such doubt seriously, as it is counter-
intuitive, and we are hard -wired for not doubting the reality of
predators and preys, and not for understanding QM, comp, or the salvia
experience. We are programmed to forget the dreams quickly, and to not
muse too much about them. Some religion, especially when
institutionalized, are "against knowledge" and want us to be ignorant,
even on the questions (cf the "apple" of the tree of knowledge).
Bruno
Mitch
The debate God/ Non-God is utterly ridiculous, and it hides the
whole of what the greek theology was about: that is the question:
"is the physical universe reality, or is the physical universe only
an aspect, or a shadow, or an effect, or a border, of ... something
else (popularly called God)"?
By negating theology, you impose the theology according to which the
physical universe *is* the fundamental thing explaining (in
principle) all the others.
But that is what I doubt, and show non defensible if we assume
computationalism in the cognitive science.
Science has not decided between Plato's type of reality, or
Aristotle's one, and with Computationalism, Plato just send a ball
in the goal, ... and no one pretend the match is finished.
I got the feeling that most of the time, you talk like if you knew
the answer, or like if you were not interested in that field.
We can't criticize religions because the churches, with the help of
the main stream atheist (of your type), does not want us to come
back to reasoning at that level, yet.
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 12:41 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 10 Jan 2015, at 22:47, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 PGC <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bruno -- he is very respectful of other people's opinions and
always argues the ideas without resorting to name calling.
>> Just yesterday Bruno called me a bigot, and it wasn't the first
time.
> Even if he did, you called yourself a bigot yesterday more clearly
I did? Please explain, I'm all ears.
> you believe in your right to give "tongue lashings" or whatever
to people holding different opinions.
That is true, I believe I have the right to give tongue lashings
because, although I may be mistaken, I believe I have freedom of
speech.
> Sure, we can disagree more or less vehemently.
Yes.
> But I don't feel this constant need to keep repeating my message
and shove it into the list over and over, nor do I believe that
punishment or constant shaming of others' beliefs will convert
them. That seems to border on delusion because you're proud of your
crusade, your achievements as a twelve year old, your unique
ability to hijack acronyms
Wow that's quite a tongue lashing! I must conclude that you
believe you have the right to give me a tongue lashing if I hold
different opinions than you, but I do not have the right to give
you a tongue lashing if you hold different opinions than me. You
have the right of free speech but I do not.
>openly displaying blanket prejudice to whole religious groups,
different theologies as well as theology as concept.
I plead guilty to being prejudice against stupidity ignorance and
bad ideas, and there are few ideas stupider or more ignorant than
religion in general or Islam in particular. And yes I display my
contempt openly but in the future I promise to give religion all
the respect it deserves.
By the way, I wonder if you or anybody else on the list can explain
something to me that I have never understood; why is it that in all
of human activity religion is the one and only one that is supposed
to be absolutely positively 100% immune from criticism, and anyone
who breaks this social convention is a terrible person almost by
definition?
Do you realize that my illustration, that we can come back to
theology with a scientific attitude, (and even take the work already
done by the greek and Indians, (and jewish and muslims later, btw),
and pursue it with the modern tools (Church-Turing thesis,
theoretical computer science, modal logics, mathematical logic,
physics, etc.) is the best, constructive way, to criticize all
*institutionalized* religion?
Are you aware that by criticizing such approach, you maintain the
field in the hands of those who have the dogma?
The answer to your question is plausibly because people like you
refuse the criticizing of religion, indeed, they seem to remain
inflexible about changing, or generalizing, its most basic notion:
God.
The debate God/ Non-God is utterly ridiculous, and it hides the
whole of what the greek theology was about: that is the question:
"is the physical universe reality, or is the physical universe only
an aspect, or a shadow, or an effect, or a border, of ... something
else (popularly called God)"?
By negating theology, you impose the theology according to which the
physical universe *is* the fundamental thing explaining (in
principle) all the others.
But that is what I doubt, and show non defensible if we assume
computationalism in the cognitive science.
Science has not decided between Plato's type of reality, or
Aristotle's one, and with Computationalism, Plato just send a ball
in the goal, ... and no one pretend the match is finished.
I got the feeling that most of the time, you talk like if you knew
the answer, or like if you were not interested in that field.
We can't criticize religions because the churches, with the help of
the main stream atheist (of your type), does not want us to come
back to reasoning at that level, yet.
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 everything-
[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.
--
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.
