> On 16 Apr 2021, at 04:36, spudboy100 via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Have you considered that you are limiting the capability of the cosmos to > change and adapt?
… change and adapt to what? With Mechanism, we cannot invoke our personal ontological commitment, especially when doing Metaphysics. No, I agree that there is an apparent cosmos, a persistent illusion, and it might or not be seen as adapting itself to the reality of the number relations. It has not much choice in this “matter”. > It may have a feature that may have fooled Turing, until Turing caught on, > because given enough time and health, Turing is adaptable too? To be sure Turing was a naturalist. He missed the contradiction with (weak) materialism. But if you meant the Church-Turing thesis; I tend to think that this is a very serious thesis. I would need some solid argument to tell it refuted. Then, Mechanism itself is my working hypothesis, although I can argue that there are many evidence, and none for materialism, like the greek already understood less formally. Bruno > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 6:16 am > Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not > released on April 1st) > > >> On 12 Apr 2021, at 04:44, spudboy100 via Everything List >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> How about this article and embedded paper, from some physicists employed by >> Microsoft? >> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-helped-physicists-explore-the-nature-of-the-universes-evolution/ar-BB1fuo5k >> >> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-helped-physicists-explore-the-nature-of-the-universes-evolution/ar-BB1fuo5k> >> >> Basically, that the cosmos is really a self-learning computer is a >> conclusion that suggests that laws are hard to pin down because the >> "Operating System," (Blessed, be He-She-It-Them) is always coming up with >> new understandings? > > > The physical universe cannot be a computer, because that implies Mechanism, > but Mechanism makes the physical universe into a non computable statistics on > all (relative) computations, which cannot be emulated by any computer. > > If “I” am a machine, Reality is not Turing emulable, and the physical reality > too. We already know that the arithmetical reality is not Turing emulable. > > In fact, the physical universe cannot be an ontological reality. It is not a > thing, but a first person plural experience. (Assuming Descartes + Turing…). > > Bruno > > > > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Sent: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 11:05 am >> Subject: The theology of number (Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg) >> >> >>> On 2 Apr 2021, at 16:15, Philip Benjamin <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> [Philip Benjamin] >>> First of all, just a cue: most if not all postings here are responses >>> to the postings of somebody else. I identify certain things, especially >>> occultist mysticism, as WAMP [Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] and not >>> science, which does not refer to any particular person(s), rather a >>> self-description or a general observation . Paganism is genuinely germane >>> here, since civilized and erudite pagan Augustine’s “instant >>> transformation” pulled the West out from Greco-Roman PAGANISM, >>> philosophies, polytheistic superstitions and “unknown gods” into a path of >>> knowable universe and investigative explorations that finally led to the >>> development of science and technologies which the rest of the pagan world >>> of civilizations and mystic scholarships could not initiate. >> >> >> I use the term “pagan” for “non confessional theology”, and in particular >> the line: >> >> Parmenides, Pythagorus, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus, Proclus, … >> Damascius … the Universal Turing machine (the indexical digital mechanist >> one in particular). >> >> I take it as a meliorative. I would say that science somehow ended when >> theology was taken from science to “religious authoritarian institution”, >> who use wishful demagogic thinking, authoritative arguments and fairy tales, >> in place of trying to solve problems. >> >> The Renaissance, unlike 13th century Islam, was only half enlightenment, as >> the main and most fundamental science metaphysics/theology/philosophy has >> been maintained in charlatanism, literature, politics… >> >> >> >> >>> The WAMP is a stealing beneficiary of that Augustinian Trust, including the >>> Five Day workweek, Sabbaticals, etc. which are uniquely Scriptural and >>> unheard of in other cultures. That is not “white trash” (N/A to Philip >>> Benjamin anyway) as some here label, but a hard historical fact. >> >> We might both appreciate St-Augustin, but maybe for the exact opposite >> reason… (I don’t know). >> >> >> >> >>> As regards Bruno Marchal’s musings below, some general points need be >>> enumerated. >>> 1 . Ones’ worldview is not necessarily science, >> >> >> It is science if the theory is not claimed as true, and is presented in a >> sufficiently precise way that it is testable/refutable. >> >> >> >>> even if it be based on scientific observations. Bohr’s Taoism or Jungian >>> sorceries are not >>> necessarily sciences. >> >> >> OK. (That can be debated as some of their statements are theorem in the >> physics derived from the theology (the Solovay G* logic) of the >> arithmetically sound machines. You might to study some of my papers(*). >> >> >> >>> They are worldviews based on the notions of particle-wave dualism and the >>> BOTH & logical fallacy. Wave- >>> likeness is not waviness. Particles behave like waves which can be >>> described mathematically by via AS IF logic. >> >> >> I do not assume a physical ontological reality, nor do I assume any theory. >> >> I do not doubt about the existence of a physical reality, but I do not take >> it as the fundamental theory a priori. >> My work shows how to test such ontological existence, and thanks to “Quantum >> Mechanics without Wave Collapse”, a rather strong case can be made that >> Nature favours Descartes’ Mechanism (and its immaterialism and non >> physicalism) instead of Aristotle ’s physicalism/materialism. >> >> I can explain that Mechanism and Materialism, widely confused, are in >> complete opposition to each others, and inconsistent when taken >> simultaneously. >> >> >> >> >> >>> 2 . Bio dark-matter is to astrophysical dark-matter, as bio light-matter >>> (Periodic Table) is to astrophysical light-matter (H & He). >> >> >> One of my goal is to just understand term like “matter” and “physical”, so I >> avoid to invoke them, before I get enough of them. All I got is a a >> statistic on relative computational state in arithmetic (in the standard >> model of arithmetic or in all models of arithmetic: computation is an >> absolute notion in logic, set theory, etc.) >> >> >> >>> 3 . laws of chemistry are universal. >> >> I expect this as a theorem of arithmetic/machine-theology. >> >> >> >>> Chemical bonds are spin-governed particle configurations of duets and >>> octets. >>> 4 . It is more unethical than unscientific to deny chemistry to 95% of >>> unknown matter, but accept that for 5% of the known matter. >>> 5 . Bio dark-matter particles of negligible mass with respect to electrons >>> may compose of axions, monopoles and/or neutrinos or >>> something else. >>> 6 . There is an “Additional Mass” reported on growth, and the same mass >>> missing on death of organisms grown in hermetically sealed >>> tubes. >>> These experiments are reproducible and there is no legitimate reason >>> why the WAMP do not repeat them for confirmation. >>> 7 . There is an increase of biophoton emission rate by an order of >>> magnitude across the taxa (from human cells to plant cells in >>> Petri-dish). Also, the biophoton emission rates increase with >>> stress on the cell growth with a burst of biophotons at cell death. >>> Note: All references to all these experiments have been cited before. >> >> >> My methodology to formulate and solve the mind-body problem makes it >> impossible to use those 4-> 7 points, unless you show them testable and, >> either theorem in machine theology, or refuting it. If they are merely >> consistent, they might belong to geography/history (the contingent first >> person plural history). >> >> You might study my “large public” presentation in Amsterdam in 2004. See >> blue link below. >> Since then I do not more mention “arithmetical realism” because it is part >> of the classical Church-Turing thesis. >> >> My work asks for some familiarity with the 1930s discoveries of the >> logicians: the universal machine, essential incompleteness, >> non-expressibility of (arithmetical) truth in arithmetic. To be sure Löb’s >> theorem 1955, and Solovay arithmetical completeness of the modal logic G* in >> 1976 play an important rôle. >> >> By “theology of machine” or “theology of number” I mean mainly the modal >> logic G1* and its intensional variants. >> >> G1 axiomatises completely the provable part of the self-reference logic (By >> a theorem of Solovay +Visser), and G1* axiomatises the true part (idem). >> G1 is included in G1*. >> G1* minus G1, which is not empty (by incompleteness) axiomatises the >> “surrational” corona in between rational and irrational. >> >> The variants of Theaetetus definition of knowledge make sense in this >> context. The main point is that G* shows them all equivalent (they all “see” >> the same truth, in fact the sigma_1 truth), but G1 proves none of those >> equivalence. The self-referentially correct machine believes correctly that >> they obey very different logics (intuitionist, quantum logic, …). >> >> With p sigma_1 we have >> >> G* proves p <-> ([]p) <-> ([]p & p) <-> ([]p & <>t) <-> ([]p & <>t & p) >> >> But G does not proves any of those equivalence. They all belong in the >> proper theological part of the theology (which, from the machine perspective >> transcend its “science” (G)). >> >> “[]p” is Gödel’s beweisbar (provable) predicate (<>p is ~[]~p, “~” is the >> negation), p is an arbitrary partial computable, provable (if true) >> sentences of arithmetic/computer-science. >> >> Bruno >> >> (*) >> >> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog >> Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 >> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157> >> >> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in >> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 >> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993> >> >> B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International >> System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, >> Amsterdam, 2004. >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html >> <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> >> >> Plotinus PDF paper with the link: >> Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation >> of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and >> Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference >> on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi >> di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007. >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf >> <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf> >> >> >> >> >>> Philip Benjamin >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11:45 AM [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg >>> >>> >>> On 26 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> PB. From a scientific point of view, awakening refers to the extrinsic >>> energization of the non-electric, non-entropic, bio twin formed from the >>> moment of conception from bio dark-matter and its chemistries. >>> >>> From a scientific point of view that is a (vague) theory. I will wait for >>> the axioms, and the consequences, and the means of testing. >>> >>> If by Pagan you mean the believer in Matter, you seem doubly Pagan to me, >>> as you assume two sorts of matter. >>> >>> Personally I tend to see (weak) Materialism as a lasting superstition. It >>> will disappear from the natural science, or the science of the observable, >>> like vitalism has disappeared from biology. >>> What what I see are universal machine measuring numbers and inferring all >>> sorts of relation betweens those numbers. And yes, some claim bizarre >>> things about those things not capturable by numbers, and they are correct >>> on this. >>> When doing metaphysics with the scientific method, we can use, today, the >>> tools provided by mathematical logic, to distinguish better the realities >>> (“models” or “interpretations” in the sense of logician) and the >>> theories/machines/words/numbers/finite-thing we are tackling about, and can >>> be talking with, or “in” (standard use). >>> >>> I have no idea of your assumptions, and invoking dark matter is very weird, >>> do you mean a theory with axions? I am not sure anybody have found a theory >>> of Dark Matter, and I am personally skeptical on any ontological matter, as >>> there are no evidence for that (despite Newtonian physics would contradict >>> Mechanism, and be an evidence against mechanism if it were true). >>> >>> Gödel’s theorem protects Mechanism from Diagonalisation à la Lucas-Penrose, >>> and it happens that it protects mechanism from many misuse of quantum >>> mechanics, that it predicts “semantically” and “syntactlcally”, and this >>> without ontological commitment, just the usual simple fact of the type >>> 2+2=4 or KSK = S, ... >>> >>> 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704AABEF2D5F503B0864548A87A9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704AABEF2D5F503B0864548A87A9%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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0E379B0D-915A-45D5-A386-A5376D432A0C%40ulb.ac.be >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0E379B0D-915A-45D5-A386-A5376D432A0C%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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1723262815.659496.1618195442271%40mail.yahoo.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1723262815.659496.1618195442271%40mail.yahoo.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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/92BAA855-52DE-4E7D-8DFC-5AD04E675743%40ulb.ac.be > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/92BAA855-52DE-4E7D-8DFC-5AD04E675743%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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1310136537.2834256.1618540607998%40mail.yahoo.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1310136537.2834256.1618540607998%40mail.yahoo.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/52692315-7D38-48EB-98BF-C384BD944294%40ulb.ac.be.
