> On 30 Apr 2020, at 15:26, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 6:09:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 28 Apr 2020, at 16:50, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> The Tao has features parallel to the quantum vacuum, and with what I am >> working with entanglement and gauge theory I think energy and entanglement >> form a wholeness that is similar to the "Qi.” > > I am skeptical. Some analogies are possible, but with mechanism, energy and > entanglement comes from the universal machine modes of self-reference, in a > manner provably equivalent to Plotinus, once we use the lexicon > > The One = Arithmetical truth > The Noùs = provability > The soul = conjunction of provability with truth > Intelligible Matter = conjunction of provability with consistency (= physics, > quanta) > Sensible Matter = conjunction of provability, consistency and truth (= > physics, qualia). > > Gödel and Löb, and Solovay theorem makes this technically transparent, and we > get an intuitionist logic for the “knower” (the soul) and quantum logic for > Matter, and a sort of quantum intuitionist logic for the sensible realm. > > > > This is where I have big departures. I tend not to see these sorts of > mystical connections with mathematics.
Those are facts which have been proven, in the frame of the Digital Mechanist hypothesis, using the most stander definition of the greek and/or explained through thought experiment. The confusion is that the use of primary matter is the invalid speculation, when we assume that the body does not use magic (mechanism). > I can see some parallels with things, but I don't see mathematical proofs as > somehow soulness. I say that a machine believes some proposition p when she asserts p. Then I limit myself to machine whose beliefs are arithmetically sound, like RA, but having enough induction axioms, like PA, ZF, etc. They are all Löbian, and so they obey to the logic G* and G. Then I use Theatetus definition of knowledge/ A machine knows p when she asserts p, and p is true. Socrates refute this definition, but his refutation is itself refuted by the incompleteness theorem, mainly thanks to the fact that G* proves []p <-> ([]p & p), but G does not prove this, making the definition by theaetetus senseful, and indeed, this leads to a (modal) theory of knowledge, with a transparent arithmetical interpretation, which associate an intuitionist knower to such machine, and that is what I call the soul in the lexicon translating Plotinus in arithmetic. So a mathematical proof is importantly and typically NOT related to soulless. What is related to soulless is the conjunction of proof and truth. This makes also the soul or first person becoming something: True Non Provable, Non defnable, yet Knowable directly (experienceable) Indubitable (this require Löbianity, G*) + of course the fact that it is invariant for a finite mechanical and digital functional substitution at *some* level of description. The advantage is that the G (proof) G* (truth) separation, makes possible to distinguish qualia and quanta. As the theory is testable, let us test it. I have not heard of another testable (and rather well tested) theory of consciousness. That theory also explains completely why consciousness seems so much mysterious. G* - G illustrates that in between the rational and the irrational, there is a corona of accessible truth (by the machine) that the machine cannot justify. The Löbian machine can justify this, though. She can explain (already) why she cannot define truth, and why her consistency makes her impossible to prove the existence of a reality, or to prove its own consistency. With Digital Mechanism, it should be clear that it is the belief in a ontological physical universe which becomes the highly speculative mystical speculation. Mechanism assumes Church-thesis, and the “yes doctor”, but the theory provided by the machine assumes only elementary arithmetic, and the “yes doctor” is just a meta-motivation. The real science is in the attempt to refute that theory. Newton dynamics does refute that theory, but quantum mechanics rather confirms it. It is up to the believer in some primary matter, or some primitive physical theory to explains how that theory or primary matter select a (set of) computation(s) in arithmetic. But it seems obvious to me that this is impossible. Do you see that? I can explain more if you want. Bruno > > LC > > > >> With these at least there is no Orwellian terror being in the sky we have to >> fall to our knees before. > > That idea does not belong to theology, but to dogmatic pseudo-theology > invented by Tyran to make people obeying to them. > > They have used science as well, but it is easier to use the fundamental > science, although in the USSR they have used biology for the same purpose. Of > course they got “fake biology”. Similarly, when theology brings dogma, it is > no more science, and should not even be considered at all (except in > sociology of “pseudo”-religion). > > > >> >> If we humans were really the intelligent life form we pretend to be we would >> have gotten rid of the monotheistic beliefs at least a century ago. > > > If the theology was not have been stolen by politics, we would have > discovered the universal machine before 1000, and quantum physics before the > 12th centenary, I think this is plausible., and we would already been on > Mars, and there would be no covid-19 (or no so bad immune reaction to it, as > we would not have repeated the mistake of bringing health in the hand of the > politics, a toy version of the 529 big error). > > Read Plotinus, or Proclus, or study directly the G/G* theology of the > universal machine. Put the bible on your shell in such a way you forget its > existence, as this is to theology what the horoscope is to astrophysics. > > The problem of those who separated religion/theology from science is that > they make science into a sort of religion, and they believe things like > “scientist knows that there is physical universe” which is a nonsense. Many > people claiming that they have no religion today believes without knowing > that they are just espousing Aristotle Theology: the belief that God is > basically the physical reality. But there are no evidence at all for this. It > is a confusion between evidence for laws about measurable numbers relation, > and evidence for doing a physical ontological commitment. It is a confusion > between physics and metaphysics. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> <Qi.png> >> >> >> >> LC >> >> >> >> >>> Religion claims to have the ultimate truth, or THE TRUTH, >> >> >> Only when a tyran steal the domain to those who can remain serious and >> modest on the complex foundational issues. >> >> Dont confuse god, the object of theological study, and god, the object of >> naïve popular fairy tales, especially when it is mixed with state and >> politics. (The genuine blasphemy). >> >> Yes, I know that we have to backtrack about 1500 years to find serious >> studies, but if you study the history of religion, you can understand that >> serious theologian have continue to exist, although usually hiding their >> theories, or presenting them in a way so that they are not immediately send >> at stake. >> >> >> >> >>> and we are supposed to wait patiently for a great day of revelation. >> >> >> Religion has something to do with personal experience, which are usually >> forbidden once the religion is stolen by politics, let us say. >> >> >> >> >> >>> For most of us this will come after death, where if we have done all the >>> right things, according to various scriptures, >> >> Of course in science there is no scripture, except papers and treatises. >> >> >> >>> we will come to know the ultimate Truth and live in eternal bliss. >> >> Of course those terms must be defined before we conclude anything, and such >> a conclusion would only be conditional on some theory. For example, if we >> assume mechanism, we cannot assume consistently materialism. (That is not >> entirely obvious, but I got this in the 1970s, at a time where most people >> told me that this was not original, and indeed that was understood by the >> greeks already). >> >> >> >> >>> For those who are errant they get to spend eternity in a pit of endless >>> fire where they suffer until the end of time --- but somehow this God still >>> loves us. >> >> >> That god is omniscient and omnipotent, which is logically impossible. Since >> St-Thomas, even the (educated) christians does not take any of this >> literally. I am aware that American Evangelist does, or at least fall they >> do, but apparently it is used only for making the people offering planes and >> money to the boss. The con-artistry is just obvious. >> >> You can use such argument to defeat the literalist. Scared-text literalism >> is only a tool for propagating atheism. >> >> >> >>> >>> I don't know about anyone else, but I call this a big hustle. These >>> religions were schemes concocted by various religious and political con-men >>> as a way people could be controlled and society choreographed according to >>> the wishes of an ecclesiastical class. >> >> >> Absolutely. That is why I insist that theology comes back at the academy, >> where doubts, critics, alternate theories, and research are encouraged. >> >> >> >>> Both Christianity and Islam suffer from this problem, they are huge >>> social-psychological cons played against people, and where these schemes >>> have a lot of staying power. They are sorts of neural-brain memes that >>> lodges themselves in minds and are difficult to remove. >> >> >> Like all propaganda. It is to theology what astrology is to astronomy. >> >> >> >>> >>> I read a translation of the Koran after 9/11. I would say my general >>> comment is that if this were first published now, with crisp new copies >>> available at bookstores and Amazon, the reviewers would be calling it the >>> screed of a complete lunatic. >> >> >> What is lunatic is to read such text like if there were scientific attempt >> to understand things. Before Al Ghazali, many muslims were quite open to >> this, and that is why they decide to come back to the greeks and translated >> their text, leading to science, but they will not benefit from it, as the >> dark mixing with power will come back and prevail. >> >> >> >> >> >>> The Mecca Koran, which is thought to have been written when Muhammed was in >>> Mecca with his few followers, is relatively inoffensive and reads a bit >>> like Psalms or Proverbs. The second Medina Koran was allegedly written >>> after they got their butts kicked out of Mecca, and this part is pure >>> insanity. >> >> OK. >> >> >>> >>> We really should be done with these silly things. >> >> It is easy. Let us stop claim that science has solved the ontological >> problem, like materialist do (believer in primary mater). >> >> >> >> >>> These are based on mythic narratives concerning ideas from the ancient >>> world. >> >> That is not entirely true. Hypatia taught mathematics and theology in >> Alexandria, still around 300/400. But we can see the radicals taking >> position, and she will be murdered by them. >> >> You just cannot compare Plotinus and Proclus to the reading of any >> sacred-fairy tales book. Those scared text are honorable witnessing of the >> past, but no-one would claim they even address the problem. >> >> >> >> >>> They may have made sense then, but really some education and thought should >>> indicate how utterly ineffective monotheist religion is as telling us >>> anything really meaningful or useful. >> >> Monotheism is the religion view of monism. At least Einstein was aware of >> that, and explained that without it, he would not even have searched for a >> his general relativity theory. >> >> Monotheism is the grandmother of the theory of of everything, or of the >> insight we should unify our knowledge in a coherent way. The theism aspect >> is in the modesty, which enforces a constant listening to a ll arguments, >> even the most critical, especially the most critical (unless refuted of >> course). >> >> >> >> >>> It is a load of nonsense. We do not sit with slack jaw waiting for some >>> great Santa Claus or fairy godmother to come and reveal ALL to us. Instead >>> we think, observe, measure, rethink and … , repeat, in order to know what >>> is truthful within the limits and tentative certitude of science. >> >> There is no certitude in science. Just hypotheses/theories and degrees of >> plausibility. It does not matter so much in applied natural science, but it >> matters a lot in applied fundamental science, notably by understanding that >> in religion only the con men claims some truth. >> >> By leaving theology in the fairy tale literature, we give power to the tyran >> and to argument of authority in religion, but also we make science looking >> like if it was an alternative to religion, that is, we make science itself >> into a pseudo-religion. >> >> That separates eventually the whole human science from exact science, and >> that makes them both inhuman and inexact. >> >> The problem is not God. The problem is that some people conclude that God >> does not exist when they find a contradiction in some theory of God. That >> would be like a scientists along that Earth does not exist, because the idea >> of infinitely many turtles does not make sense. >> >> In science we very rarely abandon a concept. We just improve it through new >> theory. >> >> I the greek theology, the starting God was the natural numbers, then the >> world of ideas, and then Aristotle added a physical primary universe. Today, >> se know or should know that such a primary physical universe is contradicted >> by Mechanism (even with just the amount of mechanism necessitate to make >> sense of Darwin). >> Here the problem is that those who claim to not have a religion appears to >> believe in Aristotle theology, the belief in a primary physical universe. >> This, as I have explained here, is just not working at all, unless you >> eliminate consciousness from the picture. >> >> Unfortunately, there are still many people who are confusing the strong >> evidences for the physical laws with evidences for a primary physical >> universe, or for physicalism. That’s just wrong. That confuses physics and >> metaphysics. That is Aristotle act of faith in his metaphysics, and a sort >> of anti-platonic provocation, and misunderstanding. Of course people love >> it, as they love ontological commitments, as it seems reassuring I guess, >> but that is the kind of pseudo-religious wishful thinking that is not >> tolerated when we work with the scientific attitude. >> >> We will leave the Middle-Age when theology is back, probably as an option in >> advanced mathematical logic and computer science (even non-mechanist >> position can be get more precise ny making precise the digital mechanist >> position. We know that the modal logic G and G* remains sound, but some can >> lose completeness, like “being true in all *transitive* models of ZF”. >> (Being true in *all* models of ZF is just provability for which G and G* are >> complete in their respective roles). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> >>> LC >>> >>> >>> > He didn’t create this world without purpose, >>> >>> >>> So let us search the purpose, and try theories. The notion of purpose is >>> not an easy notion. >>> >>> >>> >>> > I’m sure there is a greater purpose to our eternal life! >>> >>> >>> So let us do the research work, as this is not obvious, although a pleasant >>> idea (but that is reason to be careful on this, especially when we are >>> still on the terrestrial plane, where modesty is not so much an option). >>> >>> When you assume a greater purpose you need to take into account that some >>> people will borrow an ersatz greater purpose for terrestrial use, and that >>> this can eventually hide for long the genuine higher purpose of the higher >>> self. The machine already understand that some (religious) truth go only >>> without saying. >>> >>> Those who trust the great Goddess leaves the advertising to Her.The genuine >>> mystic stays mute, or propose some theory and reason conditionally. >>> >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com >>> > >>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com>. >>> > >>> > <image0.jpeg> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 23-Apr-2020, at 6:05 AM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> So, if you have pleased, the All-Mighty, and are ushered in to Janah, >>> >> and you are given permission, what would you do for your first year >>> >> there? >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com >>> > >>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DEEC3CCB-0CE7-45F9-9AED-75285CFD90E4%40gmail.com>. >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89cbc25a-b75e-4c9f-8600-343a09d8e0af%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89cbc25a-b75e-4c9f-8600-343a09d8e0af%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8db5b9f8-00e2-459d-b60d-d47702f76c3c%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8db5b9f8-00e2-459d-b60d-d47702f76c3c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> <Qi.png> > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98b77c49-6337-48f8-8318-574814a10827%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98b77c49-6337-48f8-8318-574814a10827%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D5373834-8AF8-4CFC-92CD-EC80C518DEC2%40ulb.ac.be.
