On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:24 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence. > > > > On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote: > >> [*Brent Meeker*] >> >> “https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation” >> >> [*Philip Benjamin*] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. >> “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides). >> > > OK. Key point. > > > > > Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law >> Giver. >> > > But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about > machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including > oneself. Introspective machine/number can’t miss it. > > > What is it that makes the truths concerning consciousness unprovable? Is it unprovable only by that machine where another entity using another more powerful system could prove it? Is it a consequence of self reference? Is it related to trying to prove statements of a form "Machine X cannot prove P"? If I run a simulation of some entity on my computer, could I not prove statements about the knowledge/information states contained by it's mind? What exactly are the limits of what can be proved? Is it just about qualia? Jason > > > The logical question is: “what is more reasonable?” DEAD MATTER producing >> life or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of >> rationality can be established here. >> >> > Both in the arithmetical reality, and in the physical reality, life is a > simple consequence of the so called second recursion theorem by Kleene. It > is the fact that piece of codes can encode all it needs to protect itself, > to reproduce itself, to grow, develop, organise and evolved… > > Now, the physical reality is not a primitive primary reality, but an > illusion common to all relative numbers, in almost all of their consistent > histories. > > > > > > > The laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence] > > > The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I guess > you are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true before human life > appears on this planet and after. OK? > > > > > > > > > There may be patterns in nature, and we inductively infer them as laws. > > > … OK, and we can sometimes deduce some laws from other, and verify with > Nature. Then there are some mathematical laws, that we find by > introspection and dialog with others. > This is neutral with respect to the question of the origin of the physical > reality. With Mechanism, the physical reality does not need to be assumed, > and in fact cannot be assumed if we want get both the quanta and the > qualia, as this requires a much simpler theory, like any Turing universal > system/theory. > > > The idea there must be a mind for anything to exist is silly. > > > Yes. It is like abandoning to try to explain mind (and matter). It is > better to not assume neither mind nor matter as fundamental. But we have to > assume at least one universal machinery, and the old Pythagorean one works > very well (natural numbers + the laws making it in a Turing universal > system). > > > > Where did the mind come from, and if such a mind existed there was then no > true nothingness. > > > Yes. In fact it is the empty explanation “God made it”, which might work, > actually, but only with a mathematically precise theory of God, and an > explanation of it build the physical reality, or how it makes us believe in > a physical reality. > > With mechanism we assume only “very elementary arithmetic” (PA without the > induction axioms), and derive from this the existence of the universal > numbers, and get physics from their own notion of observable. Physics > becomes a statistics on the relative experience/dream by numbers emulated > in Arithmetic, in virtue of the laws of + and *. > > What people miss is that the notion of computation is purely an > arithmetical notion. See the book by Martin Davis, and its chapter 4, for a > proof of this, but Gödel’s 1931 contains it already implicitly. Gödel > missed it because he missed the Church-Turing thesis, and was quite > skeptical until 1936 where he was convinced by Turing. > > > > > [Benjamin:] > > Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of >> Greco-Roman roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the >> West off Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions ( >> https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine). Thus he >> was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the foundation of >> the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (*Acts 17*) where the >> Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH >> (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the >> Apostles. >> >> Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the >> questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply >> evading them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter. >> > > I think that most “progressive pagans” never really assumed the existence > of Dead Matter, nor even of any Matter, to begin with. > > Bruno > > > > > > *Philip Benjamin * >> >> >> >> *From:* 'Brent Meeker' Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:38 PM >> [email protected] *Subject:* Re: Why Does Anything Exist? >> >> On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What was there before there was nothing? >> >> >> >> I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, >> there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of >> numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define >> all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a >> result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: >> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2Fwhy-does-anything-exist%2F%23A_Story_of_Creation&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cec5e0f69aead43a3c24308d8e32a6d06%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637509118637908964%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Lrh0EuaQoC0WABBOwHIKVI7SwW4TYdzZaqaqysIVp6c%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >> But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist". Logical >> laws, number, etc are derivative on language. They don't "exist" >> physically. The logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a >> predicate. Any sensible discussion of "exist"needs to start with >> recognizing it has several different meanings. >> >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27d045ca-8d46-4eab-9084-3bcea523b826n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27d045ca-8d46-4eab-9084-3bcea523b826n%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/B4A08744-6D82-4B28-861B-2E21F6BA877B%40ulb.ac.be > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B4A08744-6D82-4B28-861B-2E21F6BA877B%40ulb.ac.be?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/CA%2BBCJUhVa_qSZmh5Hxb3iAo%2BvdWF%2BD7h7fpUjpbNFkUFux3j7w%40mail.gmail.com.
