> On 5 Jun 2018, at 16:58, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4 June 2018 at 17:11, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 3 Jun 2018, at 20:40, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 2 June 2018 at 17:10, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to see Bruno actually quote some well known philosophers or >>>>>>>> scientist using the term. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Materialism vs. Idealism is one of the oldest philosophical debates, >>>> >>>> Yes, and like all old philosophical debates philosophers have not moved one >>>> inch closer to a resolution of the problem in the last 2000 years, they >>>> just >>>> keep going around and around in circles. That's not to say gigantic >>>> progress >>>> in philosophy hasn't been made, its just that philosophy is no longer done >>>> by philosophers, its done by scientists and mathematicians. >>> >>> What you are alluding to is more or less how the idiot Greeks >>> operated. They also tended to be all of those things at the same time. >>> I have no particular sympathy for modern academic "philosophers", but >>> this is a bit like expecting an academic literary critic to write a >>> novel that one wold care to read. Is there a lot of bullshit in >>> academia? Sure. Also true in the sciences. >>> >>>> Newton, Gauss, >>>> Darwin, Maxwell, Cantor, Einstein, Hubble, Godel,Turing, Everett, and >>>> Watson >>>> and Crick advanced the field of philosophy enormously; Karl Popper did not. >>> >>> There have been tremendous philosophical advances in modern history >>> outside of the natural sciences. The entire world was a laboratory for >>> many of these ideas. Some of the American founding fathers were >>> philosophers, and so was Karl Marx. I could also mention ethics -- and >>> again many such ideas made their way into how our civilization is >>> organized. We could also discuss issues of meaning, and the many >>> viewpoints surrounding one of the original philosophical questions: >>> "how to live a good life?". >>> >>> I would say that you simply have a bias for the natural sciences, and >>> don't really care for other fields of inquiry. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> The uber-mainstream wikipedia defines materialism as a belief in that >>>>> matter is primary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, >>>>> and matter secondary. " >>>> >>>> >>>> It would seem to me that statement is about as un-controversial and >>>> non-profound as a statement can be. >>> >>> The profoundity of ideas is a personal and subjective assessment. I >>> don't think it really has any bearing on validity or relevance. >>> Depending on my state of mind, the ideas that I find the most profound >>> at a given moment vary a great deal. Also certain life events turn >>> cliches into deep wisdom, and vice-versa. >>> >>>> In this context "secondary" doesn't mean >>>> second rate, it just means there is a difference between nouns and verbs. >>>> “Stuff" is not the same as "doing stuff" and doing stuff is secondary >>>> because stuff obviously can't do anything if stuff doesn't exist. I'm not >>>> saying this is deep I'm just saying its true. >>> >>> You are imposing your own metaphysics on the article. It's not a >>> question of something being "second rate". In the materialist view, >>> mind is secondary to matter, but nobody uses this to claim that mind >>> is some second rate thing. It's a question of weather there exists >>> some reality independent from the perception of conscious entities >>> where what we call "matter" can be said to exist, even when we are not >>> looking. I am not trying to convince you that idealism is correct (I >>> am not convinced myself), I am just arguing that it is a perfectly >>> coherent hypothesis, that has not been proved nor disproved. >> >> I agree. But I also think that materialism is refuted in all frame assuming >> digital mechanism. > > I agree -- under that assumption.
OK. Well, to be precise, you don’t need Mechanism to prove “Mechanism -> non Materialism”. But you need “mechanism” to imply “non materialism”. I guess that is what you meant. > >> I also believe that digital mechanism solves (perhaps incorrectly in case it >> happens to be refuted) the "hard problem” of consciousness versus matter. At >> least for all conscious people who are OK with the ideas that consciousness >> is, for them, true, non doubtable, immediate, non definable, and non >> provable. That can be used as a semi-axiomatic theory of consciousness, and >> it can be shown that all (Löbian) universal machine are confronted with, >> and can described, such predicate. >> More: Consciousness got an important role here: it speed a machine >> relatively to other machine. Consciousness select the computation (without >> magic, but like in the WM duplication), but it accelerates the self >> developing autonomy. It provides … free-will, which is not much the ability >> to say “no” to the authorities, be them parents, teacher, bishops, >> ayatollah, etc. > > I have had an idea for some time, and I will describe it to see if it > goes in the direction of what you are saying. > > You could say it proposes a solution to the Fermi Paradox. My idea is > to combine Darwinism, Many-Worlds and Anthropic reasoning: what if > evolution works exactly as modern Biology describes it, but with a > probability of success that is incredibly low? Then the multiverse > could be a barren wasteland, with incredibly sporadic regions where > entities like us evolved. This then becomes a complex version of your > duplication machine, where I can only see Moscow if Moscow exists, > which is to say, if I am in a computation that supports human > existence. > > This would also explain my disappointments with genetic programming :) That makes sense. I think that mechanism might solve the Fermi paradox in that way. We are excessively rare in the physical universe, but multiplied by quasi-infinity locally in the multiverse. That has to happen for getting a deep, long and stable history. That is quite plausible, but far from being proved (for the technical reason this asks for more progress in provability logic, which is highly undecidable when quantifier are introduced. That is the weakness of Mechanism: it leads to very hard problem in math. But the contrary would be astonishing. In fact, the Z1* logic, if correct, might need a quantum computer to be tractable. > >>> >>>> And by the way, the number of >>>> times the phrase "primary matter" is mentioned in that article is exactly >>>> the same number you will find it mentioned in any modern physics journal. >>>> Zero. >>> >>> I assumed I was not arguing with a string matching algorithm. In this >>> case it does take a bit of semantic parsing: >>> >>> "To materialists, matter is primary[...]" >>> >>> Now, I am not a native English speaker, but I am fairly convinced that >>> if you find the pattern: >>> >>> N is A, where N is a noun and A is an adjective, you can equally >>> allude to AN. For example you could write the equivalent sentence: >>> >>> "Materialists believe in primary matter." >>> >>> But if you insist on string-matching arguments: >>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=primary%20matter >>> >>> Modern physics journal: >>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1014465327475 >>> >>>> The reason the “primary matter" debate is never going to get anywhere is >>>> that philosophers write impassioned posts and even scholarly tomes about >>>> the >>>> existence or non-existence of "primary matter" but never once ask >>>> themselves >>>> what the hell the term is supposed to mean, and many don't even wonder what >>>> "matter" means. >>> >>> You illustrate the belief in primary matter frequently, when you argue >>> with Bruno that a physical computer is necessary for computations to >>> exist, or that physics is more fundamental than math. This is a >>> position of belief in primary matter. >>> >>>> Leibniz invented the silly catch phrase but, as is >>>> customary whenever scientists put on their philosopher's hat, he was rather >>>> vague (and Bruno even more vague) about what "primary matter” means; and >>>> that's why specialists in the study of matter, physicists, have never found >>>> the idea useful. >>> >>> It is normal that they don't find it useful, since they are interested >>> in physics and not in metaphysics -- although, of course, it is >>> possible to be interested in both. >>> >>>> And “free will” is a idea that’s even worse, but of course >>>> that hasn’t stopped philosophers from generating a vast quantity of >>>> verbiage >>>> about that too. >>> >>> With that I agree. >> >> See my reply to Clark on this. Free-will is often defined by an ability to >> do something randomly, but that is impossible and that is just, imho, a very >> bad definition. If you read the neoplatonist, or study the behaviour of the >> neoplatonist, like I just described, or like in the video on Islam that I >> just gave, and still in my buffer: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60JboffOhaw >> >> You will see that free-will was exactly what the literalist were opposed >> (who defend literal interpretation of sacred texts as dogmatic truth). >> >> Free-will is the ability to determine oneself, with respect to Nature, or >> the Pope. Free-will is almost more a right than a metaphysical truth. Today, >> this is taught to pilots of airliners.the encouragement to the copilots to >> say to the commandant or the captain of the plane that they are wrong. That >> is not obvious, especially when they come from the army. More than a hundred >> passenger planes have crashed despite the cockpit recorder show that the >> copilot were aware that the commandant were wrong, but they were felling not >> free to tell him. > > Thanks for the video, I will watch when I have a bit of time. Take your time. I do think that it is an important video. There are some facts that I am still checking. > > If I understand correctly, you define free-will as the ability to act > independently from other people, biological instincts and so on. I would define free will by the ability to determine oneself, with or despite the others. It is the ability to make a choice in a context where we don’t have enough information. It is the ability to hesitate. Personally I feel like having too much free-will, but that is a sign of luck, as it means I don’t have to fight everyday to get enough to eat or drink … Free-will is a luxury. In urgency, you don’t have the time to hesitate. In an army, free-will belongs to the captain, not to the soldiers, for example. > My > problem is that free-will must be free from something. Yes, free-will is only the will, when you have enough freedom to give sense to the will. > I can accept it > as a relative concept -- my free-will in relation to what other people > want me to do, as you say. But isn't it the case that, if you zoom out > enough, there is nothing for the will to be free from? You are right. If you zoom out enough, you get the arithmetical structure, where free will does not exist, unless you accept Orwell’s definition, which is a bit hyperbolical: free will is the right to say that 2+2=4. It is very meaningful, because in totalitarian regime, the frustration comes from the inability to tell the truth, or what you think could be the truth. > Just a bunch of > stuff happening? If you zoom out enough, there is no stuff, nor any happening. > If your Universal Dovetailer is the source-code of > reality, doesn't it contain all computations? Potentially, yes, and its execution in the arithmetical reality makes it actual for the self-aware entities relative produced, or relatively existing, yes. > Then whatever I choice I > make "here" is replaced by another choice somewhere else. Not at all. Because free-will requires determinacy. When you choose to take a lift instead of jumping out of the window, your determination is a product of many non trivial, relatively rare, computations in your brain which determine your will and choice, and you will do that on the vast majorities of computations from which your “stuffy body” emerges. There will be some computations where you jump out of the window, but they will be as rare as a white rabbit. By its intrinsic indeterminacy (the 3p one, not the 1p one)), the universal machine has a range of free-will, allowing to make choice ate her risk and peril. But that gives her a partial control, which can be used to manage the aspect of most (the majority) of your computational continuations. If you decide to take the lift, it will be like preparing a particle with spin up, say. It will be up with a high probability, and, in this case, you will take the lift in all, or almost all, computations/continuations. If you decide to jump out of the window, you will suffer with a high probability. The decision change the measure of your continuations, and that is why free-will, or will, and decisions, make sense. > I have the > impression that free-will in this context amounts to an inability to > perceive everything. That is only the consciousness selection of the histories, but your acst can change your history (and the history of your neighbours). And, ironically, you can see, notably in the video above, that the theologians who have fought the most against free-will are the theologians who have subdued reason to the text, and allow religion to be an oppressive tool to control the people and to fight against science, especially fundamental science. The muslims have not been better in the 11th century than the Christians in the 6th century. It is always for political authoritarianism. I don’t think that this is a coincidence. Free-will is what you need to fight for freedom, including the freedom to do science. For that, you need a theology which does not encourage literal reading of sacred texts, but the total freedom of criticising any texts or theory. To abandon free-will lead to fatalism, like with "Inch Allah". Or like with the lawyer who says that his client has only obeyed to the Schroedinger equation, which is ridiculous, as this allows the jury to condemn it without any reflexion, just by saying that they too have just obeyed to the wave equation. The fact is that only God can zoom out completely. (Which implies, as Plotinus understood, that God has no free will, but he remains skeptical on that conclusion, though). In the terrestrial plane, we cannot zoom out like that, and have to rely on our will, but then we can make the world better, or worst (notably by abandoning our will to the local boss). Free-will is the ability to say that the boss is wrong, and pay the consequences. Only the authoritarian people, and the fake institutionalised religion have fought against the free-will notion, but only to make people swallowing their unfair decision making them able to steal the money (and soul) of their people or adepts. Free-will is not much more than the will + freedom. It is never existing or not existing, it is always a matter or degree, and is, as you say, a relative notion (but then with mechanism, everything is relative except arithmetic and Turing equivalent). In a democracy, freedom-will is what makes you able to vote for this or that party or person. Bruno > > Best, > Telmo. > >> John Clark like to say that free-will is nonsense, but he used an old >> definition which indeed makes the concept non sensical. But that video of >> Islam showed how science has declined very quickly when they passed from a >> theology defending the notion of free-will to a theology against it, which >> of course suited more the authoritarians. >> >> Best, >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >>> >>> Telmo. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
