On 18 Dec 2016, at 00:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before,
Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean
those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it
would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard
definition in analytical philosophy.
and I either found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the
human amygdala again!) or found it too hard to comprehend,
You can ask question. Do you have a problem with the definition of the
weak computationalist assumption?
when you used to say "read the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn
that weak cerebrum!), and so forth.
I don't believe in weak cerebrum. I think you just showed, indeed just
above, some emotional unpalatableness, if I can say.
My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate
for me, that since there is and has been unending tragic goings on
in the world (perhaps 3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight
have decided its up to our species, and/or its descendents, to sort
thing out.
yes, but history shows also that the tragic doing is sometime just
perpetuated by such "good intentions". The passage from unicellular to
pluricellular was also a way to sort things out, but it made us going
out of the ocean and it can lost us on Mars, Titan, or far beyond.
Nothing is simple. Beyond universality, simplifying is itself a root
of complexifying.
I am believing that, lacking all other available actions, computing
is the way to go. the only way at this point.
To compute you need a universal machine, and that machine is only one
more unknown in a equation of 8 billions of unknowns.
99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and
taking that as a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of
things, once more, I persist anyway.
We have partial control. The attempt to get total control either kill
universality/freedom, or get inconsistent/delire/catastrophes.
You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is.
I am not sure this makes sense. At some level we all have to do that.
At a different level, we all try to improve the human condition
relative to this or that possible "reality".
The main lesson here given by the universal machine, but also by Alan
Watts (The wisdom of insecurity) or Robert Valadier (Inéluctable
morale) is ... well, it is sum up in the popular saying "Hell is paved
with good intention".
One way to help, avoiding that warning, is to study the right, and
politics, and trying to fix the system, which has been taken into
hostage since sometimes. Today the fundamental powers (media,
politics, judiciary, academic, etc.) are no more separated, which is
mandatory for a democracy (Montesquieu).
I sift through science papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular
online source, attempting to look for possibilities of things, such
as cosmological registers of some sort, a MAC address in the sky,
but something, more read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a laugh.
Everything can be used for a laugh (grin).
Not sure why you want a MAC address in the sky, well, not sure a sky
belongs to the category of things providing addresses. I Hope you
don't believe that God lives on some cloud (re-grin).
Bruno
I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife,
soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our
relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality,
although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge
*is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain
here&now or a pleasure here&now, that we can know but not
communicate rationally, nor justified).
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you
interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our
region of the universe, by understanding the rules?
I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation.
Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the
relation between us and that reality.
I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife,
soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our
relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality,
although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge
*is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain
here&now or a pleasure here&now, that we can know but not
communicate rationally, nor justified).
I think most fundamental researchers are motivated by a curiosity
and fascination on some Reality that they are searching, and often,
it can happen they get cursed by the beauty of their theories, which
can help but can also become an handicap----that will depend on many
things.
So it is neither for the enjoyment of some science per se, nor for
helping humanity, it is by curiosity of what is real, with, in the
background some enjoyment for what we can see/conceive in the
process, and the idea that better knowing what is real can only help
humanity if she needs help.
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The question you asked was (I quote):
>
> >>>I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
> >>>explain the predictive power of physics.
>
>
> Let me try to explain again.
>
> How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person
> experience?
>
> To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing an
> eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.
>
> The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There
> is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or
> realized objects obeying laws.
I don't think this is the case. For example, in the theory of statics,
used to construct bridges, solid objects with properties of tensile
strength, (mass) density, elasticity and so on are assumed, even
though ontologically, they are known to be composed of mostly empty
space, with those very ontological properties the result of
electromagnetic fields.
Most other physical models are the same - the example Brent gave of
using continuous fluid mechanics to predict hurricances is an
excelent point. Of course we know that the atmosphere is not a
continuum, but rather made up of a collection of molecules with
emergent properties that makes the continuous description a good one.
It may be that some physicists think that the objects of the Standard
Model (leptons, quarks, bosons etc) are somehow fundamental, but I
doubt
that many would stick to their guns on that.
But the Standard Model is used quite rarely for making predictions,
and is generally computationally infeasible. Classical dynamics is
much more widely used.
So I cannot see why someone pointing to the predictive power of
physics is in any way making an ontological statement of the form of
physicalism. IIRC, in the original context, Brent was trying to
tongue-in-cheek say that the laws of fluid dynamics is God, even
though I know he strongly asserts that God must be a person, so it
must have been some sort of satirical response. Nevertheless, I didn't
see anywhere where he claimed that the models of physics were
ontological.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellow hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
