> On 14 Mar 2021, at 18:47, Philip Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Philip Benjamin] > Laws are NOT constructs of the human mind. The ‘expressions of the > Laws’ are indeed human constructs. F=GmM/r^2 = ma is only a human expression > of Laws governing an unknown force called gravity. ‘Unknown’ here means > unknown to human consciousness that DID NOT and COULD NOT have CREATED > ‘gravity’. From F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the > gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the > Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the Earth), > GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) which allows solving for M, the mass of the > Earth. M = ar^2/G, where a = 9.8m/sec^2, r = 6.4 x 10^6 m, and G = 6.67 x > 10^-11m3/(kg sec^2). M = 9.8 x (6.4 x 10^6)^2/(6.67 x 10^-11) = 6.0 x > 10^24kg. This mass, radius, gravity and their relationships etc. are not > created by human minds!! Greek Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the > earth comparing shadows in wells during the summer solstice about 230 B.C. > No human mind howsoever brilliant can escape facing the necessity of > aseity of something or other. Only a degree of rationality can be settled > here. What is MORE rational: Eternal dead-matter producing life > (consciousness) or E ternal LIFE producing both dead-matter and life > (consciousness)?
Assuming Mechanism, there is no choice here. What is more rational is elementary arithmetic, as it explains where the beliefs n creator and creation comes from, and why it can hurt sometimes. Then, if we get wrong on anything observable, we can speculate that Mechanism is false, or we are in a malevolent simulation, etc. Bruno > Philip Benjamin > > [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf > Of Jason Resch verything List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist? On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:24 AM Bruno > Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence. > On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote: > [Brent Meeker] > “https://alwaysasking.com/ > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ce85437ffe6d546fdcfa408d8e6f95056%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637513305755870501%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xxiBa5jFlmboc103NsaS6z0B7EfKETnwfZBVt%2FMOYSg%3D&reserved=0>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. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > [Philip 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 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwestaugustinians.org%2Fconversion-of-st-augustine&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ce85437ffe6d546fdcfa408d8e6f95056%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637513305755870501%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=f%2BRNxMlwakbu4TPOUr%2Fbfah8o%2FIO7J%2FqU9dKojA9YPo%3D&reserved=0>). > 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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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%7Ce85437ffe6d546fdcfa408d8e6f95056%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637513305755880457%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PSSz%2F%2FSq%2BRD8Q43%2Bx3eQV8LYlRdQPrmgzivDXDxo%2BLo%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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704455AF26299282587E197A86D9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704455AF26299282587E197A86D9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.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/A28D29B7-1ACB-4EAA-B16A-EFAF7C6141F3%40ulb.ac.be.
