On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when
they use the word [God] .
> But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to
disbelieve.
Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the
word "God" is clear
Really?
It's certainly more definite than the set of all meanings, including
yours, which are given to the word "God". You can't make a word
better defined by adding meanings.
i don't add meaning, I subtract only the meaning added by the politics
for prower and control purpose, as opposed to the early free research.
My definition is in most religious dictionnaries, even catholic one.
God: primary cause of everything. Only gnostic atheists defend
seriously the christian god. educated christian have evolved (perhaps
more in Europa than America perhaps).
and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or
disappear the universe would look very different depending on if
that switch was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws
of physics so it would make no difference if He existed or
not.
My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is
derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived
formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the
statistical interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to
my knowledge, is the only theory explaining the difference between
qualias and quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.
It doesn't explain them. It just takes two aspects of modal logic
and says one corresponds to qualia and one to quanta.
yes, but with an explanation why.
But qualia and quanta don't actually appear.
?
What does that mean? They cerainly appears in the sense that the self-
observing machine mention them, and understand the difference with the
sharable quanta. Indeed they do experience the qualia, but realize
that they cannot formalize them without reference to some notion of
global truth that they are aware that they cannot prove nor even define.
It's as if you said here is arithmetic; the prime numbers are qualia
and the composite numbers are quanta.
Come on. this illustration miss the main point. Qualia are measurable
by the machine, but not expressible or definable. The qualia theory is
X1* minus X1. It is what machine can know-for-sure yet cannot prove to
others (and can prove that they cannot prove to others if they assumed
to be sound or consistent). The miracle is that they are explainable
conditionnaly to a self-correctness meta-assumption (yet not doable by
the machine explicitly without becoming inconsistent).
To explain them you would need to show their relation to
perception and to objects in the world as well as internal
narratives and imagination.
That is done in part, and I refer you to a paper by John Bell (the
logician, not the physicist) showing the relation between perception
and quantum logic.
Bell, 1986Bell, J. L. (1986). A new approach to quantum logic. Brit.
J. Phil. Sci., 37:83-99.
>> It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means
something.
> Really?
Yes really. "An immortal person exists with
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped "
means something , so the statement has the virtue of being
either right or wrong. In this case wrong. But when you say
"God" it means nothing so it's rather like a burp, it's just a
noise and is neither right nor wrong.
God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is
the god of the platonist.
Aristotle also held that there must be a first cause. Why call it
"god" and why attribute the idea to Plato. I don't think Plato even
gave an argument for a first cause.
See his Parmenides. "cause" is not meant for "physical cause", it can
be logical, theological, etc. The goal is to figure out what could be
real.
Science is born from the doubt that reality is wysiwyg.
And from a desire to explain what you see and predict what you'll get.
Yes.
But the fondamental science search for a global picture, and try to
avoid important aspect of all experiences, including consciousness
states.
The original question is about the nature of the physical observable.
You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.
>> Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite
literally don't know what they're talking about when they talk
about "God".
> We use the greek notion.
I'm begging you, please please please stop talking about the
idiot ancient Greeks!
They proposed the two big different conceptions of reality: either
a primary physical universe (naturalism, materialism, ...) or
something else from which the physical can itself been explained
(either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God (only numbers and
enumerable number relations).
The relevant theological fracture is there. I the physical universe
the real thing, or are we "just" universal numbers lost in an
arithmetical web of dreams. Both theory (computer science) and
observations (quantum mechanics) adds evidence that the internal
many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic might be a simpler theory.
In theology, the greeks were the only rationalist trying to explain
experiences, and compared to the canonical theology of the ideally
self-referentially correct universal machine, the two "idiots"
Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, might still be the closest human
case of self-referentially correct self-reference.
Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the
second God of Aristotle (Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first
principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural numbers).
tha basic idea is that God is whatever is at the origin of you
actual state of consciousness. The greeks were those who understood
the transcendent character of that thing, and get to the debate
between variants of mathematicalism and variants of physicalism (to
use our terming).
> >> god is just the big things at the origin of
everything.
>> And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you
prepared to call that God? Of course you're not!
> ?
!
>> And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you
want something that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful,
not something as mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.
> ?
!
> I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of
the machine is Arithmetical Truth.
The set of all false arithmetical statements has as much (or as
little) existence as the set of all true arithmetical
statements; without physics and the computations
The physical computations are still defined by the physical
implementations of the computations. two beers in the fridge is not
rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist physically, and here you beg
the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle. It is the
favorite gods of the catholics.
it allows how can even God tell one from the other? And the
correct multiplication table can't think any better than
an incorrect multiplication table . And a God that can't think
is a pretty low rent God.
The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations (and
more). Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.
>> And speaking of a sack full of doorknobs, how can one
tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon
theologian?
> The first one personified God metaphorically. The
second one take such personification literally.
So God has a metaphorical mind with metaphorical intelligence
and metaphorical consciousness who does metaphorical things and
has a metaphorical existence. So God is every bit as real as
Batman is.
No. You need the pythagorean god to compute your taxes, or to solve
an equation in physics.
You need only batman for having a good time for some hours, from
times to times.
When seeking an answer to a philosophical question you'd do just
as well to ask the opinion of an expert on Batman comics as you
would to ask the opinion of an expert on God.
>> I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a
better understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake
of argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob
did not exist; how would the universe be one bit different? What
could "God" bring to the table that something that wasn't a
invisible fuzzy mindless blob could not?
> God exist by definition.
You can create any definition you like and when you do so the
definition exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the
thing or concept that is being defined exists.
Of course. if that was the case, I would not have said that God
exist by definition for the platonist.
I can define "flobknee" as "the integer that is equal to 2+3 but
is not equal to 5", the definition exists but the integer does
not. But my question was not about definitions. I want to
know how the universe would be different if , an
invisible amoral fuzzy mindless blob that does nothing
to violate the laws of physics and does not hear our prayers and
is indifferent to our fate, did not exist. So what is your answer,
how would things be different?
> if God did not exist, we would not have this conversation.
I asked this question before but you did not answer it, If
physics someday proved that the quantum vacuum was responsible for
existence would you be prepared to call a vacuum God? I very much
doubt it.
I would if *you* could explain how that observable vaccum select
the first person view among all computations. If that is the acse,
I would certainly accept that the quantum vaccum is the son of the
glass of bear. With mechanism, we have the good theory of
consciousness, but to relate it to the observation is a complex
exercise in the self-reference logics.
God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.
That shows only how much you take for granted the brainwashing of
the clericals. They are those who have tried to hide the greeks,
even to bannish them and forbid the personal inquiry and research
in the field.
You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope, I think. You disregard
any theology which does not fit with a stupid conception of
theology, I guess because it is so fun to mock fake theory than to
undertaken the genuine reflexion.
I don't believe in the god in which you don't believe but still
keep talking about.
But you keep capitalizing the god you believe in - just as the
Church requires and following the convention of capitalizing names
of persons.
Everyone accept that God is the cause of everything, by definition.
only atheists insist that God is the Abramanic God. Well, the
abramanic god has some relation with the notion of God, but that one
does not even admit a definition so that we can do reasoning. The
greek notion of one, expounded in the Parmenides and developped by
both the Neopythagorean schools and the neoplatonist school, are
rather precise conception of reality, and they are matched by the
canonical theology of the universal Turing machine. The theology-
arithmetic lexicon is
p truth
[]p proof
[]p & p knowledge
[]p & <>t observation
[]p & <>t & p sensation
The theory predicts that physics is entirely given by the three last,
at the G* level, with p DU-accessible (sigma_1). It works as it
predicts quantum logic, state superposition, indeterminacy, non-
locality, almost linearity, almost reversibility, etc, all that in a
deterministic picture.
Now, if you could give a theory of quanta and qualia which makes
Matter existing fundamentally, I am all ear, and you might change my
mind on Mechanism, but if Mechanism is correct, you have to introduce
irrational magic, the surrational given by incompleteness cannot be
enough.
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
