Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote: I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be shown that at the s

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Oops apologies to Jason - great minds etc! I should have read to the end of the thread before I posted... but the question stands, regardless. On 29 December 2013 23:34, LizR wrote: > > > > On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> No, reality just makes a random choic

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But > the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality > actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the > probabilities

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Richard and Stephen, > > ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul > doesn't exist! > > Edgar > > > How do you know it doesn't exist? Jason > > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. > How can a computation make a random choice? Jason > But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality > actually makes an actual c

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Richard and Stephen, ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul doesn't exist! Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King < > step...@provensecure.com > wrote: > > Something to

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent, No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the probabilities of choices. Big difference. Reality does the computation,

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Something to think about: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! > Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the so

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 5:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is happening is independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and there is no deterministic way to align separate independent spaces (in the absence of a common

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilisti

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent, Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is happening is independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and there is no deterministic way to align separate independent spaces (in the absence of a common background reference space which does not exi

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

OK, I like Omnes too, and Fuchs and Peres. But their view is that the wavefunction is just a calculational device thru which we make predictions. So the collapse of the wavefunction is just us learning new results and revising our prediction. But you seem to have a more physical model of what

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Stephen, In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense. This is closely related to the idea that 'everything is its information only' which I cover in Part V of my book. We could equally say that 'everyth

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Sure, but that's what advocates of Everett consider important. In Copenhagen you have to apply the Born rule and then say those are the probabilities of my observation and *one* of them occurs. Everett says they all occur and different instances of *you* observe them. So which is your theory

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jason, > > You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for > them. > > There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this > world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. > > Why do you think there

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Edgar, Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did you have with this idea? On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > What we need to understand here is that

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how real

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi Brent, Allow me to use your words directly: Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousne

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent, Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct. That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic. It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish alternative interpretation Edgar On Saturday, December 28,

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent, You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence that produces results but of course we do... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM,

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretati

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Liz, OK, this is an extremely important issue. I agree that "we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so." That is precisely what my approach to quantum mini-spacetimes is. But the next step is

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... But decoherence doesn't "produce" *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do you get from there to the definite observation? A

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math wor

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Brent, Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation... I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation. You

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Brent, Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation... On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > You'll have

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Dec

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R wrote: > On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> >> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all >> time,

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all > time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was > proposed. Do > Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, > > Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many > worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave > functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. > > The MWI assumes a bac

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Bruno, when you wrote: *"...arithmetic > number's dreams => physics* *OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. * *And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science..."* for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!) "incoherent". That entire unf

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar If decoh

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

John, Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence results rather than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM. I'm just using common parlance. But this is irrelevant to my points. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:47:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > With decoherence everything is a wavefunction > No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no more reality than lines of longitude and latitu

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all > time > Yes Many Worlds is absolutely outlandish but that doesn't mean it's incorrect because if there is one thing that quantum mechanics has taught us it's that what

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote > >> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right > now? > Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. > > > I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. > At last a straight answer, the answer is 1.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Bruno, I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there will also be one but it

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verifie

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theor

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is "many-world". If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relat

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason, See my new topic what is a wavefunction for my reply Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:01:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Jason, > > To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just > interact

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jason, > > To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just > interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual > (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. > > Decoherence is a

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and t

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent: But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. Richard: I do not understand how it is divided up according to the probability measure. For example in the Schrodinger Cat experiment, the cat is 50% aliv

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience wherea

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem corr

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jason, > > Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you > don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what > you are saying. > > As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident dir

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish int

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Richard, and Bruno, > > I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. > Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of > the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ev

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Richard, and Bruno, I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time, and many

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Brun

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> He did answer and did it correctly, > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the questio

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 12:59, Edgar Owen wrote: Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are mo

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Vu Le 24 déc. 2013 19:44, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >>> He did answer and did it correctly, >>> >>> >>> >> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? >> >> >> > Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. > > > Take pi

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> He did answer and did it correctly, >>> >> >> >> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? >> > > > Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. > Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw Bruno g

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> He did answer and did it correctly, >> > > > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? > > I quote myself: > > >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the > question John Clark asked, the question ne

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Edgar, Have you considered reflexivity based theories of consciousness, such as thus proposed by Greg Zuckermanand Louis H. Kauffman? (Kauffman does no

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of organisms, b

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:43, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: << That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the questi

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013/12/23 John Clark > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > He did answer and did it correctly, >> > > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? > Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. > > > Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. >> > > Dodging

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > He did answer and did it correctly, > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? > Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. > Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant. John K Clark -- You received this message becaus

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013/12/23 John Clark > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrot > > >>> The question is ambiguous. >>> >> >> >> If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase " the >> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" ! >> If your phrase m

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrot > >>> The question is ambiguous. >> > > >> If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase " the > first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" ! > If your phrase means anything you should be able to tel

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > > > I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. > The number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person > experience. > I know that, what I don't know is what numbe

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:55, meekerdb wrote: On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version c

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: > > 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of > physical sciences - > > > I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason > is quite cauti

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi Brent, Is there a reason why we only consider the 'standard" models to apply when we are considering foundation theory (or whatever you might denote what we are studying)? Have you ever looked at the Tennenbaum theorem

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi John, I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. The number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person experience. The point here is that each entity can only experience their own. The notion of a 3rd person experience can only consider the evidence

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Bruno Marchal wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the >>> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p >>> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a >>> fifth time: how many first person experien

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there >> is only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points >> of view". Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? >> > > >

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infin

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 21 Dec 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platfor

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi Brent, I don't like these types of truth predicates since they are Platonic in their assumptions, as if statements do not even involve or relate to finite entities like ourselves or, more relevant to my own work, real world computers. Consider a paper by Lou Kauffman that considers a local no

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axi

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 21 December 2013 11:48, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise! > "Immaterial" indeed :-) > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum? >> > -- You received this message because you

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 22 December 2013 07:55, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question >>> John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p view", >>> it was never mentioned. So Jo

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013/12/21 Quentin Anciaux > > > > 2013/12/21 John Clark > >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p view", it was

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013/12/21 John Clark > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question >>> John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p view", >>> it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat th

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question >> John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p view", >> it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth >> time: how m

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 Stephen Paul King wrote: >> I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that precise, >> if a change in a quantum state destroys our identity then we die about >> 10^44 times a second; and a consciousness that never changes is not a >> consciousness. >> > > > D

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of >> mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. >> > > If you as

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - at least on a mthematical justification of theorems. Even Bruno's "we see" is suspect: we *THINK* we see, in adjusted ways as we can absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know about 'to

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of > mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. > If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind u

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:43, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. What specifically? The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism. All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can you list the implicit assumptions? I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination >> JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100% chance Jason Resch wil

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > How many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? > The question is ambiguous. I provided all

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes wrote: > Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. > What specifically? The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism. All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there. > I learned those figments in college and appli

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, Could it be that the physical world that is associated with an observer (using your definition of an observer) is the "truth" of that observer? I apologize for the weirdness of this question, but consider that nothing is mo

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Dear LizR, > > Is math "in our heads" or is it somehow "out there". If it is "out > there" how does it connect to what is in our heads? > Mathematicians simulate other objects and realities using their he

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch wrote: > Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark will eventually find himself in this computer Yes,

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Dear Jason, > > I think it was you that wrote (to me): > "I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would > be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by > so

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of observable "matter" needs the entire UD* to get describe exactly, given that the appearance of matter is only the result of the FPI on

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi Jason, That is a beautifully clear explanation of how assuming comp leads to the existence of self aware beings within arithmetic realism. You have shown that philosophical debate can also be poetry! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everythin

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >