On 07 Mar 2016, at 23:46, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Have you seen the video by Perry Marshal?
No and I don't intend to because it would take a hour of my life,
a hour that I will never get back. I have however read a
brief summery of Marshal's book, enough to know I don't want to read
anymore of it. Marshal offers $100,000 to anyone
who can answer what he claims is greatest question in all biology:
"Where does genetic information come from?". But that is no longer
a deep question because it was answered in 1859.
I can be OK with this, but from the video, I interpret what he said
differently. But as you decide to talkon people without reading them,
well, you said the same thing on Proclus, and me.
You have clairvoyance, bravo.
If randomness exists (and there is no law of logic that demands
every event have a cause)
exists in which sense? phenomenological randomness has been explained
by Everett in the physical frame, and it is explained in the
arithmetical frame by the universal numbers themselves.
Then 3p randomness is already in the counting algorithm. Most numbers
written in base 2 or bigger can be proved to be random (not
individually though).
then generating information is easy, in fact there is no way to
avoid doing so.
OK. Information is easy, and the way universal machine treats
information is easy at the base level, but get very complex on the
higher level, especially with the self-referential levels.
Of course not all information is equal, some forms of information
will be able to reproduce better in the physical world than others,
and natural selection ensures that is the form we will
most likely see in biology. And that is really all that Darwin
was saying.
No problem. Just that if the information is supposed to be handled
digitally at some level, then you have the problem of extracting the
appearance of matter from the statistics on all computation. You get
to the place you need to add magic to matter to keep physical science
fundamental, as the physical becomes a sum on all digital computations
going through your states. (But of course you need a bit more than
step 1 and 2 of the UD Argument that you ahev decided to not read).
What is done here extends Darwin up to the origin of matter.
So if Marshal is a man of his word he should find out who Darwin's
closest living decedents are and give the $100,000 to them.
Exactly, I told Samya that Perry Marshall is the orthodox view.
Perhaps using a different vocabulary.
Well, if Samya or someone knows a video where he defend "intelligent
design" in a sense which is not amenable to the "obvious" but quite
complicated machine's psychology or biology, I would change my mind.
Of course, it mlight look like that because people believe that
intelligence is complex and used only by superior organism, but well,
I have already explained that only inferior machine can believe they
are superior or inferior, the others just do their things.
Intelligence is simple. It is stupidity which is complex. You need a
big brain and some suffering to become stupid.
(I recall you that I do not identify intelligence and competence,
which are false friends)
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
