On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me how many times you
will need to use the second axioms?
Nine times. Here:
1+8=9
Prove: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))))= s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))))
For x=s(0)
Using axiom 2,
Rewriting for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))=7
Step 1: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))}
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for
y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))=6
Step 2: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))}]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))=5
Step 3: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(0)))))}]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(0))))=4
Step 4: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(0))))}]]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(0)))=3
Step 5: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(0)))}]]]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(s(0))=2
Step 6: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(0))}]]]]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(0)=1
Step 7: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(0)}]]]]]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=0
Step 8: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+0}]]]]]]]
Using axiom 1
Step 9: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)}]]]]]]]
Rewriting with round brackets
Step 10: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))) =
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))))
OK. (get the feeling you use axiom 2 only 8 times, but that is a
detail).
Yes, its eight times.
OK.
Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following
multiplicative axioms:
3) x * 0 = 0
4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)
Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.
Really?
Have you verified for all numbers?
Generalisation ?
Well, I explain to you the type of axioms we need to be able to
prove such generalization. P(n) means P is some formula of
arithmetic (made using only the logical symbols and the
arithmetical symbols: they are s, 0, + and * (together with "(",
")", and as I said the logical symbol: we can use only "->" (and
define ~A by A -> (0 = 1)).
So that we are speaking the same language, please see if the
following are as you mean them:
s = successor
Intuitively? Yes. But it will be of extreme importance to just use
that intuition to see if you are OK with the axioms, and then to
understand that in the formal derivation/computation we do not rely
on the intuition.
The axioms for s are just:
- for all x ~(0 = s(x)) (for all numbers x, 0 is not the successor
of x, put simply: 0 is not a successor).
- for all x and y, s(x) = s(y) -> x = y (equivalent with x≠y -
> s(x) ≠ s(y), that is all numbers have only one successor)
We will also use this axioms, to make things easier and straight
(and get stronger representation theorem later)
- for all x, (x = 0) or Ey(x = s(y)). That is all numbers are
either null, or have a predecessor.
In summary our assumptions are, together with some logical axioms
that we will need to make precise too:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
This is what I will call RA (for Robinson Arithmetic).
And I will show that IF we are machine, then RA is enough for a
theory of everything, and I will explain how to derive consciousness
and appearence of matter from it, without adding any new axioms,
other than computationalism translated in that theory.
0 = zero
OK. "0" is the usual symbol to denote the number zero (which is not
a symbol, but a number).
Again, what "0" really means does not concern us. We can considered
that it is defined implicitly from the axioms above. We need only
agreement on the axioms, not on the interpretation itself.
+ = plus / and
‘* = times / multiply
-> = implies that
~ = all / everything / negation ?
Negation. Those logical connector will also be implicitly define by
some axioms and rules. Not today.
In fact their semantics is very easy:
(A & B) is true when A is true and B is true, and it is false in the
other case.
(A v B) is false when A is false and B is false, and it is true in
the other case.
(A -> B) is false when A is true and B is false, and is true
otherwise (we will come back on this one).
~A is false when A is true, and is true when A is false. OK?
(0=1) ???
It is an example of a false sentence, in arithmetic.
You can verify that
~A has the same truth value than (A -> "0 = 1"). Of course here "1"
is used as an abbreviation for s(0).
P = prove
Ah, no. P was for an arbitrary arithmetical sentence. It was a meta-
variable, not allowed in the formal expression.
An arithmetical formula can only be written with the following
symbols {x, y, z, ... ; ->, &, v, ~ "it exists", "for all" ; 0, s,
+, *} together with "(" and ")".
For example
(x is less than y) can be translated in arithmetic, by "it exists z
(x + z = y)". OK? You can read it by adding "such that" after the
"z".
Exercise:
Translate in arithmetic:
(x divides y),
(x is a prime number)
(if x divides y then x divides all multiples of y)
n = natural numbers
To prove "for all n P(n)", you will need to prove
P(0)
for all n P(n) -> P(n + 1) (P(s(n))
But to extract from this that for all n P(n), we need to explicitly
accept the infinity of induction axioms, for all formula F that we
can express in the arithmetical language.
{F(0) & (for all n F(n) -> F(n + 1)} -> For all n F(n)
Can you please write this in English as well, so that I can learn
to read your arithmetical sentences correctly instead of guessing
parts of it?
Imagine an infinite row of dominoes: D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, ...
You agree that if the dominoes Di falls forward, then the dominoes Di
+1 will also fall. OK?
So you might agree that if the first domino falls, all dominoes will
fall. OK?
let us write "the domino D0 falls" by P(0), and the domino Dn falls"
by P(n): We have that:
P(0) (the first dominoes fall)
together with
P(n) -> P(n+ 1) (if a domino falls, then its "successor" falls)
entails that all dominoes fall (soon or later, of course).
The induction axioms say that this is true for all arithmetical
formula, not just for falling dominoes.
It is quite useful for proving generalisations.
Imagine that you want to prove that for all x and y (x + y) = (y +
x). You might just prove two things:
1) for all x (x + 0 = 0 + x) that is the equivalent of P(0) with
P(n) = (for all x, x + n = n + x)
2) for all x (x + n = n + x) -> (x + s(n) = s(n) + x)
Then you appeal to the induction axiom with P(n) being (for all x, x
+ n = n + x).
OK? We have to do so simpler thing before. The idea here is just
that if you want to prove that some property hold for all numbers,
you need only to prove that it holds for 0, and that if it holds fro
n, it hold for n+1. Then the truth of the statements will be implied
for all numbers, like the fall of the dominoes.
That is PA: It is RA (above) together with the infinitely many
formula {(P(0) & (for all n P(n) -> P(n+1))} -> for all n P(n).
Soon I will show you that we need those axioms. RA cannot prove
them, which I will show.
(also soon or later :)
Are you convinced that 768953 * 7999580012 = 768953 + (768953 *
7999580012) ?
If (768953 * 7999580012) is corrected to (768953 * 7999580011) :)
Excellent :)
Can you prove that s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))) ?
This is of course much longer, and you need all axioms 1), 2), 3)
and 4).
I've tried two approaches, but I am getting stuck at the last
step. Please see:
Approach 1:
Prove s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))
for x=s(s(s(0))) and y=s(0)
Applying axiom 4
Step 1: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(0))) + (s(s(s(0))) * s(0))
OK. With the usual notation, you proved that 3 * 2 = 3 + (3 * 1)
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, again using axiom 4,
assuming x=s(s(s(0))) and y=0
x * s(y)= x + (x*y)
Step 2: s(s(s(0))) * s(0) = s(s(s(0))) + (s(s(s(0))) * 0)
3 * 1 = 3 + (3 * 0)
Applying axiom 3
Step 3: s(s(s(0))) * s(0) = s(s(s(0)))
3 * 1 = 3
Replacing the value in Step 1:
s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(0))) + s(s(s(0)))
In number terms, this translates to 3 * 2 = 3 + 3 which is
correct but I do not know how to proceed with the proof.
You are just forgetting the axioms 1 and 2. s(s(s(0))) +
s(s(s(0))) matches axiom 2: x + s(y) = s(x + y).
OK?
Step 4: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0))= s(s(s(0))) + s(s(s(0)))
Using axiom 2,
Simplifying the the right side of the equation, for y=s(s(0))=2
Step 5: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) =s[s(s(s(0))) + s(s(0))]
Simplifying the the right side of the equation, for y=s(0)=1
Step 6: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) =s[s[s(s(s(0))) + s(0)]]
Simplifying the the right side of the equation, for y=0
Step 7: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) =s[s[s[s(s(s(0))) + 0]]]
Using axiom 1,
Step 8: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) =s[s[s[s(s(s(0)))]]]
Rewriting with round brackets
Step 9: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) =s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))
OK.
Approach 2:
Prove s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))
for x=s(s(s(0))) and y=0
y = 0 ?
Using the distributive property of multiplication (or whatever is
the correct term for the following),
Step 1: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = {s(s(s(0))) * 0} + {s(s(s(0))) *
s(0)} + {s(s(s(0))) * s(0)}
This is a bit weird, and besides, I will show that the
distributive law is also NOT provable in this theory.
To prove such generalization, we will later need a quite powerful
collection of axioms: the induction axioms. They made the
difference between "just Turing universal", and "Löbian".
Using axiom 3 to simplify the first {} on the right side,
Step 2: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = {0} + {s(s(s(0))) * s(0)} +
{s(s(s(0))) * s(0)}
Using axiom 4 to simplify the second and third {} on the right
side,
Step 3: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = {0} + {s(s(s(0))) + [s(s(s(0))) *
0]} + {s(s(s(0))) + [s(s(s(0))) * 0]}
Using axiom 3 to simplify the second and third {} on the right
side,
Step 4: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = {0} + {s(s(s(0))) + 0} +
{s(s(s(0))) + 0}
Using axiom 1 to simplify the second and third {} on the right
side,
Step 5: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = {0} + {s(s(s(0))) + {s(s(s(0)))}
Removing {},
Step 6: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(0))) + s(s(s(0)))
which again translates to 3 * 2 = 3 + 3 which is correct but I do
not know how to proceed with the proof.
See above.
Tell me if you are OK with my remarks, and we will proceed (as
long as it is OK with you, of course).
Very OK! Yes, please and thank you!
All right.
The problem with computer science and mathematical logic is that
there is a long and tedious part to do at the beginning, almost
like making empty a sea with a tea spoon.
I've studied a bit of programming/scripting several years ago, so
yes I understand the need to be explicit with all steps.
OK. We have the same need when we translate statement about machine
in arithmetic. That this could be done was illustrated by Gödel,
and can be used to distinguish what is true about a machine (or
even more general creatures) and what the machine (or general
creature) can justify, guess, observe, feel ... about that,
admitting some definition of those terms.
I get the drift
It is normal.
Have you followed my posts on Cantor diagonalization, and Kleene
diagonalization? Do you know what the phi_i are? And the W_i?
No
No problem. I will explain. You will see where the universal
machine, and all his dreams, persistent and not persistent, come from.
I might need also you opinion about how much you conceive that a
brain might be a "natural" machine: which means something between
will you accept digital teleportation in case of some urgent travel?
Yes, I do think the brain is a natural machine, specialised to do
its role as all other organs, so transplanting could be a
possibility. You propose a digital teleportation where the brain is
to be cut and pasted, while the organic material of the body is to
be destroyed at source, and new organic material used at
reconstitution level. This assumes that the brain contains all the
information of the self. How can we be sure of that?
We cannot. But this is assumed also in the transplantation. We need
to bet on a level of substitution, and to trust the art of some
doctor.
Note that the reasoning will work with the brain being whatever
portion of the physical universe you estimate that it is needed, as
long as that is turing emulable. This makes comp much weaker than
other computationalist hypothesis. All our theorems remain true for
all those stronger comp assumptions.
The question is not a question "in practice", but in theory. Later
on we can prove that no correct machine can determined in a 100%
justifiable way its substitution level, that's why it asks for some
explicit act of faith (which really means: *cannot* be imposed to
someone).
I suppose so, at least till it can be practically demonstrated to
be possible and safe.
That will never happen, and the first who pretend that it is, is
provably either ignorant or a liar. That is why this is a theology,
with a theotechnology which still ask for some act of faith. But
then we cannot prove that a plane will not fall, and you need some
faith to take a plane, too, and even to walk. We prove things, but
always with respect to hypotheses, that we cannot prove at all,
although we can count the evidences.
Theoretically, I think more work needs to be done on the nature of
consciousness and whether the mind is a part of the organic body or
not, and if it is only located in the brain.
The conclusion will be that there is no ("real") brain. Brain are
parts of the dreams, and this might destroy the theory by an
inflation of possibilities, like often with "everything-like
theories". Yet we will be able to see how the inflation is tampered
by the non trivialness of the relations between the numbers.
In particular, there are still little other "obvious" idea that
you have used, and which have not made explicit into axioms, so we
will need some refinement.
Please guide. Thanks!
May be after.
The way I proceed makes it possible to avoid wishful thinking,
That’s the scientific approach!
OK.
and, although I find what is there absolutely fabulous,
Look forward to discovering it :)
Nice. I like enthusiasm, but sometimes people are at first
attracted, but then a bit disappointed when they understand, or
begin to understand, if only because it makes theology into a
scientific subject, with math and other demanding works.
It is also a hot subject, where some people want that the results
fits with what they believe by old traditions. It is not a
coindidence that theology, the science, is the last to not have been
able to come back to academy.
I have learned that somehow many are not so much interested in that
kind of "possible truth".
Wonder why? Isn’t that what seeking knowledge is all about?
When you explore the jungle, you can hope for the best, but you can
also fear the worst.
In theology we are influenced by culture, wishes, hopes, fear, etc.
This seems confirmed by the fact that few like taking salvia twice,
and somehow, I can understand.
I wouldn’t be willing to take it even once. Other than the fact
that the Book clearly guides against the use of intoxicants (as the
sin is greater than the benefit), the use of a mind-altering drug
just seems wrong.
Animals do that since ever, and humans too. Most mind-altering drugs
are not toxic (actually the more they are legal, the more they are
toxic).
Toxic or not is besides the point. I refuse to take it primarily
because of God's guidance against the use of intoxicants.
?
Intoxicants have to be toxic. Many mind-altering nectar are not
intoxicants. Only alcohol, tobacco, opiates, benzodiazepine, cafeine,
well as I said, the legal one (in most countries).
Now you might give me a quote of the Quran which condemns the mind-
altering substance or body altering medication. And if you find it, I
will be disappointed by the Quran.
Even if there was not this prohibition, I still feel its wrong.
It is part of life since the beginning. If people does not harm you,
you cannot judge them of what they ingest.
You can invoke God to tell to the others what is right and wrong. You
apply such belief to yourself if you feel it, but it can only concern
a relation that you have with God, and God can have other relations
with other people.
I don't think that they are necessary, but I do think that some of
them are quite efficacious, for solving physical, mental, and even
spiritual difficulties.
What makes some of them dangerous is the prohibition, which leads to
black markets and terrorism.
But this is a bit out of topic.
Also, I googled salvia inspired images, and they seem to be quite
similar to images in polytheistic traditions.
Very often, the images are more like DMT inspired. Don't take images
seriously, especially for salvia.
Salvia is a logical drug, it provides counter-example to any
certainty you might have in theology. It provides an epimenidian
sort of super-dream argument: a sort of hallucination saying of
itself that it is an hallucination.
And be of those who doubt the revelations of God? No, thank you! I
choose to follow the guidance of Allah, and sufficient is Allah to
guide in all matters, theology and otherwise.
Sure, I do the same. But I distinguish God and the humans deformation
of the original idea or experience. Prophets are fallible humans, and
as much as I can attribute to them some genuine experience, I can't
believe in literal interpretation of the report of the experience.
Perhaps its a parallel world you experience under its influence,
and though I do believe in the existence of parallel worlds (of
angels, and dJinns, and God knows what else), I also know that they
have been hidden from normal human vision for a purpose.
I know some salvia entity which would be happy to hear you ...
Did he say why? Did he prompt you to suggest I study math?
I was alluding to the fact that with salvia you often meet "entities"
suggesting you don't explore this or that, or that if you do, you
don't tell others about what you. Sometimes, and for some "truth",
they don't care because they know that they are unbelievable, so you
risk only to be ignored. In fact you cant' believe a part of the
experience. It is hard to interpret.
I don't need salvia to suggest studying math, if interested in the
theology of the universal machine, defined by what is true about her,
as opposed to what she can justify rationally.
But with salvia, you develop some learing of what can be said and
non said, and where are the place you better not visit, at least not
now, etc.
Like with classical computationalism, there is a sort of clear
demarcation between the communicable and the non-communicable.
The Salvia Experience is the place you better not visit and which
you should not communicate with.
You are quick here.
My understanding of the Quranic verses relevant to this situation is
that there exists a parallel world of dJinns, who are able to see us
and make suggestions to us, while we humans cannot perceive them
through our normal means of perception. Iblis (Satan) and his
progeny are the sworn enemies of mankind and only wish to deceive us
and lead us to manifest loss. The humans who seek refuge among
dJinns are only increased in burden (sin / disbelief / folly /
wrongdoing).
I have no evidences that you go there with salvia. May be if you mix
salvia and amanita, or alcohol. The key is in the responsible use. All
plants leads to different places, and some combination can lead to
unpleasant places.
And if you're hoping that taking this dangerous path will help you
complete your Theory of Everything,
On the contrary. I have complete the theory before studying the
entheogen, I try to see if some experience could refute the theory. It
is normal when interested in consciousness to explore the other
consciousness state. I do think that during all night, everyone,
sometimes, go in some of those places, which are typical "rest place"
of the sleep.
it won't because they do not have this knowledge: God did not make
them witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor to their
own creation, because they are misguiders.
[http://quran.com/72 ; http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=jinn ; http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=iblis
; http://quran.com/18/51 ]
Keep in mind that I do not assume the Quran. At some point I will only
assume what I already told you, with or without computationalism at
the metalevel.
It is really stuff for those having a passion in theology.
Passion in theology can be satisfied through the use of reason as
well. Isn’t that what your comp represents?
Strictly speaking, it is the contrary. The comp theory/hypothesis
suggests, by reasoning indeed, that all passions, not just in
theology, cannot be satisfied entirely by reason only: we need a
semantics which, once we are as much complex as a universal machine,
transcend us and our means of reasoning. that is how the belief that
we might be machine suggest we can't eliminate God, person, and
consciousness as easily as materialists usually want to believe.
Have you an opinion on Everett's formulation of quantum mechanics?
From what I’ve read and understand of his theory, it seems like
the logical deduction from possible quantum outcomes, in the
absence of an outside force collapsing all other outcomes except
one. However, intuitively, there seems something amiss.
OK. We might agree actually. Everett makes a correct moves, with
respect to computationalism, but does not take all the consequences
(of computer science) into account. Few does.
Are you OK with meeting another Samiya Illias?
Interesting idea! Ask me after I meet her :)
You?
Which one?
:)
I am not pretending that anything I say is true,
Good
but I do say that it can be derived from computationalism (there is
a level of brain/body description where consciousness is invariant
for the functional digital substitution), and even constructively
for "classical computationalism" (comp + Theaetetus, from the point
of view of PA).
Need to study this before I can comment upon it.
Jews, christians, and muslims were more open to, if not more aware
of, the Platonist way to conceive/search God in their earlier
periods, but eventually the mainstream continues to stick on the
Aristotelian dogma, like notably, the existence of some primitively
physical beings.
I believe in [1] Allah,
I think "Allah" means "the God", OK. I am quite open to [1] to. But
of course this is not saying a lot. You already know that I am a
Platonist, and from where I feel to be, I tend to consider that
current christianism, judaism, Islam, *and* atheism are siligh
variants of Aristotle metaphysics, and that they might be wrong. I
think they were less wrong at the times they were less influenced by
Aristotle, and more by Plato and the mystics.
To me the real fundamental debate is not God/Not-God, but is reality
WYSIWYG (Aristotle) or not (Plato). Is physical reality the
fundamental reality, or is the physical reality the border of a
deeper reality? With computationalism, to put it roughly, the answer
is that the physical reality is a mode of the arithmetical reality,
it is somehow the true but non computable border of the mind of the
universal turing machine.
Belief in the unseen, the world on high, is an article of Muslim
faith.
Good. I mean coherent with the sort of neoplatonism of the classical
universal machine.
[2] His Angels,
Divine beings? The arithmetical reality is full of them. All the
modes, leads to sort of angels. OK.
[3] His Books,
Let us agree that we disagree on this. I can accept that the books
have some relations with some human divine experiences, but not that
any books, nor any humans, can be declared to be more correct than
another.
Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human
thinkers and philosophers,
Not really. I comes from the observation of the amoeba and the reading
of book in molecular biology, and then the disocvery of Gödel's
theorem and the universal machine, but that are theorem in arithmetic.
I do read theologians and philosopher, but just to compare with what
machine says and what I can experience. Well, also, to help me to
express the idea to the contemporaries.
while my arguments are based upon a Book which, if numbers matter, a
large number of humans believe to be of a divine revelation.
That numbers cannot count.
Other than Muslims and the Quran, there are Christians and the
Bible, the Jews and the Old Testament, the Hindus and the Vedas, who
all believe (and since centuries) that God has communicated through
messengers and revealed his message in the form of Books. God knows
best who is correct, but at least I have a Book on which I base my
arguments on.
It is a good start, but only a start. Finding what is common in all
those messages can be helpful to eliminate the cultural superstition
from the important invariants, and possible truth.
The scientific approach should be that statement about natural
phenomenon in the Book be checked for factual accuracy,
Hmm; they are not put in a sufficient precise way. Liz illlustrated
this about the statement on bees, if I remember. people having such
experience use parabolas, made specific to the type of people
addressed. The truth is behind the words, not the words. I know
Muslims who read the Quran that way, which I think is the right
attitude with such texts. If not you take the risk of making the verse
into authoritative arguments, which are argument by violence.
instead of valuing the ideas of certain human thinkers and
philosophers and thus discounting all scriptures.
The scriptures are the work of humans, not god in any direct way. If
you do the sin of idolatry. You hide the god by giving too much
importance to a messenger. A common error in the field. It is often do
in human science.
Well, at least muslims did not go as far as the christians, making a
prophet into a literal God. That's tools to steal money, it is not
religion.
Books are like Koan, they can help if we understand the parabola,
but they restrain us for progress if taken literally.
That is simply an excuse to misinterpret it. God is quite clear in
His communications.
God is unnameable, we can't be sure Who is talking. God is not that
clear. How could he "clear" for a finite creature?
If you do the math, you will understand that even "x + 0 = x" is not
so easy to interpret.
Why the muslims fight so much against each other, if the Quran was
clear. I think the reason they fight is that they believe it is clear,
but interpret it differently.
This is a recent phenomenon, although with a long complex story.
Literalism hides the message, I think.
[4] His Messengers,
Yes, but none declared as such, as naming god as an argument for
veracity of a sentence is a blasphem, I think.
How do you know? What proof do you have that God did not send any
messengers to communicate His messages?
I never said that. But he send the message to humans. He did not gave
them some infallibility. And some statement was sensefull in some
context, but things have changed.
Our thoughts and wishes cannot always be correct.
Exactly. That is the point, and that is why we need to be cautious
with any text that some people relate to God. There is a divine trap
there.
With computationalism, the Devil can imitate God, for a limited
time, in the eyes of finite creatures. Our finiteness makes us very
modest and cautious.
All the more reason to not to depend on just thought.
Thought, texts, words, ...
With computationalism, there is a negative algorihm to serach the
truth. It is:
1) if you meet someone who claims to have seen the truth, run away,
2) if you meet someone who claims to have seen someone who claims to
have seen the truth, run away,
3) if you meet someone who claims to have seen someone who claims
to have seen someone who claims to have seen the truth, run away.
4) ...
Based on your algorithms and your statements about salvia-
experience, we should run away from you!
Did I ever claim to have seen or find a truth?
I only ask question like: do you agree with "x + 0 = x", or "do you
say "yes" to the doctor", and reason from that.
Of course, Platonist already does not believe in what they see, only
in what justifies what they might see or not.
Anyone can choose intermediates between them and God, but nobody can
claim any superiority of this or that messenger.
It is almost like insulting God for not being able to choose the
messengers.
Are you not contradicting yourself? God is certainly able to choose
His messengers and prophets, and it is not for us to claim any
superiority of any one over the other [http://quran.com/2/252-253 ; http://quran.com/2/285
]
But the prophets contradict themselves, if not there would be only one
religion.
So all prophets are more or less good, and none should be taken
literally.
[5] The Latter Day (of destruction and re-creation),
Yes, there might be something like that with comp, incarnation
entails reincarnation, and creation entails recreation.
[6] Predestination (all fate, good or otherwise, is from Allah, the
Most High),
Are you OK to relate this to Einstein's informal religious axioms:
1) God does not play dice
2) No spooky action at a distance.
But with comp, there is something you will not like: God is not omni-
powerful, in fact He loose control on its border. God does not play
dice, but we do.
[7] Resurrection after Death.
Computationalism might lead to some arithmetical Bardo Thodol. It is
everything but simple, and the Indian might have some point, when
understanding that the divine goal is more in avoiding rebirth than
becoming immortal. Otto Rossler called consciousness a prison, using
Descartes and its endophysics, and you have the same with the
endoarithmetic of computationalism.
Of course, at some point things like "Death" will have to be
defined. It is not easy.
I believe in it just like I believe I’m alive in the present
moment and that I will be dead at some future moment.
I am not sure you can believe in the same way that you are conscious
here-and-now, which is a lived experience, and that you will be dead
at some future moment, which is a theory.
The only temporal future we can all be certain of is death.
Why?
Every living thing we know dies and we are constantly witnessing
birth and death all around.
In a collective dream, perhaps. Seeing someone dying is hardly a proof
that his first person experience is terminated.
That I am conscious here and now is a lived experience, and I lie if I
claim that I doubt it. But saying that I will be conscious in two
second, is a theory, already.
We do not know if we will be able to do any of the things we have
planned. The only thing we do know is that eventually we will die.
Its a theory that is constantly and consistently being proven, every
moment, across the planet Earth.
That we will die cilinically? There are evidences, but even that is a
not a proof, as their are conception of realities (Like Everett QM),
in which that proposition does not make sense.
Anyway, the planet Earth is also a theory.
To progress in the fundamental, we have to progress in doubting
*almost* everything. OK?
I am willing to doubt reason and logic and all other constructs of
human intellect including my own. I am willing to question your
theory and assumptions and proofs, in an effort to arrive at the
possible truth.
OK.
However, I am not willing to sacrifice faith on the altar of doubt.
We will never sacrifice faith. How could we? Why should we?
On the contrary, faith is what really remains when you attempt the
universal doubt.
Of course, I distinguish faith in God, from faith in anything a
human can relate to God.
I do not believe that science has the ability to conceive God
OK.
but I’m a believer in science’ ability to reason the existence
of God, without presuming the existence of God.
OK. Very cool. It will ease the sequel.
I think your comp represents the latter approach. That is why it
interests me.
OK.
By experience I know it is difficult to do that by mail. I am
curious to see how much you are open to science/doubt, and so how
much deep is your faith. (and I test myself in passing, and
everybody is invited to seized the opportunity).
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences
is not doubt.
Doubt is the lack of faith!
Doubt about God, is a lack of faith.
Doubt about humans and all what they say, especially on God, is an
evidence of faith.
All texts, all theories, all reports, all journals, all books, can and
should be put in doubt, always, if you are confident enough in the
search of truth.
All god with a name will hide the "real" one.
I can't prove that, and I might be wrong, but it is almost what the
ideally arithmetically correct universal machine already says today. I
just invite you to listen to her. OK?
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
In case of doubt, please feel free to ask what is the point of all
this.
Bruno
Samiya
If you can do this, Allah already knows that you are Turing
universal (in some large sense). You can know that too, once we
have a definition of Turing universal.
With computationalism, except for some purely logical axioms, we
have already the "theory of everything". You can see that it has
very few assumptions. It does not assume matter or god, nor
consciousness. The link with consciousness, and Allah, can be
made at some metalevel, by accepting the idea that the brain or
the body is Turing emulable. But for this we need to work a
little bit more.
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
to see that this give eight quite different view the
universal machines develop on themselves.
Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]:
And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the
Throne of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them].
It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live
harmonically in the arithmetical heaven:
God
Terrestrial Intelligible Divine
Intelligible
Universal Soul
But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four)
matters, and the "bastard calculus":
Intelligible terrestrial matter Intelligible
Divine matter
Sensible terrestrial matter Sensible
Divine matter
Here divine means mainly what is true about the machine/number
and not justifiable by the numbers.
It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent
extensions, beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God
(which is the "ultimate" semantic that the machine cannot
entirely figure out by herself (hence the faith).
Interesting!
All universal machine looking inward discover an inexhaustible
reality, with absolute and relative aspects.
Babbage discovered the universal machine, (and understood its
universality). The universal machine, the mathematical
concept, will be (re)discovered and made more precise by a
bunch of mathematical logicians, like Turing, Post, Church,
Kleene.
You are using such a universal system right now, even
plausibly two of them: your brain and your computer. They are
a key concept in computer science. They suffer a big prize for
their universality, as it makes them possible to crash, be
lied, be lost, be deluded. They can know that they are
universal, and so they can know the consequences.
The religion which recognizes the universal machine and her
classical theology might be the one which will spread easily
in the galaxy in the forthcoming millenaries. (Independently
of being true or false, actually).
Bruno
Samiya
If you want to convince me, you have to first convince the
universal person associated to the Löbian machine, I'm afraid.
I am not pretending that the machine theology applies to us,
but it is a good etalon to compare the theologies/religions/
reality-conceptions. The problem is that we have to backtrack
to Plato, where what we see is only the border of something,
that we can't see, but yet can intuit and talk about (a bit
like mathematics or music)
Bruno
--
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.
--
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.
--
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 everything-list
[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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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 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 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.
