Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter fundamentally
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Bruno Marchal I understand your point, which is correct as long as there is a body in the field. But consider the quantum wavicle of a photon. It is just a quantum wave before it hits a photographic plate, at which point it becomes a distinct photon. The quantum form of the photon before it hits the plate is a probability field with probability 1 all over the universe. Since p 1, it doesn't physically exist, it is nonphysical. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:05:33 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:37, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. But they are talking on physical space and physical time, about physical forces, which means locally measurable in our local physical reality (which comp explains as being something real, even if emergent from the first pov of numbers in numberland). Gravitational fields, in GR, are physical deformation of a physical space-time. We can't see any force, we can only measure effects, but this does not make the force non physical. I use physical informally to denote anything related to what we can observe and measure and made testable prediction on, in our physical reality. What is that, andf where does it come from? That is the question I am interested in, and comp here does not just suggest an answer, if imposes an answer and the math suggests that the (ideally correct) machine's theory is more Platonist than Aristotelian. With comp, nothing *fundamental* is physical, but the physical is still something fundamental for our type of consciousness to be selected in statistically stable and sharable histories. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among possible other
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 08 Jan 2013, at 18:14, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: GOD means the reality in which you believe. Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark method and it only takes 4 simple steps! STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may be. STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. Indeed. By the most common definition, there is no proof of existence of God, like there is no proof of existence of primary matter, etc. To define God is just an invitation to the devil to imitate God. Hell is paved with good intentions. It is a theorem of arithmetic with large but non trivial definition of Good, bad, god, evil, etc. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 08 Jan 2013, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Theism, like atheism, is unprovable. Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial definition of you. Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence of anything real. You are using a narrow conception of 'proof', i.e. logical proof. But there is also empirical proof and legal 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Yes. I use proof in the strong sense. We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such. If you cannot know anything except what you can prove in mathematics You cannot know that too. Well, except perhaps for arithmetic. then you never know anything except tautologies of the form If x then x. Arithmetic is far richer than tautologies. Do you think Fermat theorem is a tautology? If yes, then you just mean theorem, but not all theorem can be proved as if x then x, you need no logical axiom as well, that is some theoretical axioms. This entails already the existence of the contingencies and local realities. Bruno Brent Bruno but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Question: Robotic truth
On 08 Jan 2013, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote: In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary. At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary. But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level. Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a concrete physical machine. This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow). When the physical is just a certain computation, That the digital physics idea. Comp makes it wrong. The physical is a number hallucination bearing in part on the first person indeterminacy, and in part on infinities of computations. then however that computation is realized instantiates the physical. This never happens. No computation can simulate anything physical, unless partially. The UTM can't distinguish the emulation because the emulation really is instantiating the physical (although it may also be necessary that mind be instantiated also). No computation can emulate a mind or matter. Mind and matter are more global first person view of the arithmetical reality seen from inside. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Question: Robotic truth
On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:19, Richard Ruquist wrote: At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic with no need for further calculations in a block universe. I don't think so. particles are hgher level first person emergent phenomenon, from the symmetries brought by the Sigma_1 proposition, viewed with the material modalities (the probability one in the first person indeterminacy domain). At a higher level it is analog in the realm of quantum waves and fields including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/ fermions Possible. OK. Bruno yanniru. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote: In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary. At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary. But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level. Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a concrete physical machine. This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Could the Big Bang have been the collapse of a huge pre-existing quantum wave field ?
Hi Bruno Marchal There is nothing physical besides the probe before the probe interacts with the quantum wave field. The quantum wave field is simply a probability field (with prob 1) all over the universe. Anything with prob1 doesn't physically exist, because the (r,t) is not yet fixed. It is nonphysical. When the probe collapses the quantum field, then a physical photon with p=1 at (r,t) appears (materializes), and is physical because it is at a particular (r,t). I am not as sure about a physical body such as a ball bearing in a gravitational field, but a situation I had never thought of might be possible. I am told that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle would also hold for the case of a ball bearing in a gravitational field, so apparently even fairly large bodies can be considered as wavicles, that is, being nonphysical probability fields with p1 all over the universe before materializing at a specific (r,t), where the wavefield collapses. If this is possible, then the Big Bang might have been the collapse of a huge pre-existing quantum wave field (? ) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:20:52 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. Are you saying there is nothing without the probe? This can be refuted in some quantum experience where interference comes from the absence of a probe on a path. IN QM, even the (amplitude of) probability is physically real. And what is a particles if not a singularity in a field (as in quantum field theory). I agree with you, at some other level. Yes, the physical reality is only a cosmic GSM to help localizing ourselves in a (vaster) reality. Yes, the physical is a map. But this concerns both particles and forces/fields. You might still be too much materialist for comp, Roger. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the Löbian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization. Hmm... That´s why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others. Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by means of a self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the young russians did in the early XX century. If hihilism would not be painful it would not be a matter of exhibition. Sooner or later the nihilist has to choose between the suicide, that has a perfect evolutionary sense, since someone isolated, with no guide to help others in society is a social burden, and suicide is the social apoptosis, by means of which the social body re-absorb the useless. Or else the , guided by its simple instints and devoid of the experience and traditions of the past, and therefore with no vaccine for the recurrent errors of humanity, the unbeliever will reinvent again and again the primitive cults to the earth the tiranic leader and the
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Tentative meaning would be more suitable than the word opinion. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 11:07:17 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy ? Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone. ? How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly separating the information and data from opinion and beliefs? If you have, please share and if not:? this is straw man, that can't even stand on its pole. I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna land; it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and can't complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted, with McKenna that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things become distasteful in your words. Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why would you listen to some guy that takes that distasteful drug advocate seriously? PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods. Then later he evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. Yes, it must be sad for theists who long for the good old days of the Aztecs, the Holy Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the unifying force of The Cultural Revolution,... It is an intrinsic weakness of the theological field: to be perverted by politics. But this is not a rational reason to abandon the field. On the contrary, it is even more politicized when it is abandoned by the academicians. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the
intuition as wave collapse
After having discussed the collapse of a quantum field form of wavicle at a measurement probe, I wonder if ideas possibly enter consciousness in an analogous manner. Could they condense out of consciousness analogous to the collapse of a wavicle at a probe ?. Thus would be an intuitive idea. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen __,_._,___ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi meekerdb Very good; that is possibly a new version of Idealism. Also, Sheldrake and many other philosophers (eg Plato) believe that vision is a two-stage process. First the light from the object enters into our eyes, then we project the image back out into the world to where we see the chair. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 12:40:25 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/8/2013 6:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) Note that we can say the same about chairs. A chair is just a concept in our model of the world. We can't see a chair, only their effect on our vision. Brent http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, materialism means only matter fundamentally exists. But comp is already contradicting weak materialism, the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among possible other things). Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist ( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is entirely ontologically justified in pure math). Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Materialists can't consistently
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi meekerdb Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as God. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: GOD means the reality in which you believe. Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark method and it only takes 4 simple steps! STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may be. STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. John K Clark Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi Richard Ruquist That could be so. But Wittgenstein and others believed that the meaning of a word is established through usage. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 11:37:47 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means until we understand what the opposite stands for. a sorta duality that math may be based on that may even be the basis of existence of how something can come from nothing. RR a semantic toe On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. Quentin -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Where do ideas come from?
Penrose's concept of consciousness as quantum wave collapse would seem, at least this morning, to be similar or analogous to my suggestion that ideas are fixed forms of consciousness created by some type of collapse of quntum wave collapse such as photons are formed by the collapse of a wavicle. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
Hi Craig, Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here at different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five years or so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. It gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to get others to see the secret exit that I think I've found... Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away from the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about it before. Would you tell me about that secret exit? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
Hi Bruno Marchal You say, Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use physical in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content -
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi Bruno Marchal Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian intellect gets stuck. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization. Hmm... That? why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others. Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by means of a self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the young russians did in the early XX century. If hihilism would not be painful it would not be a matter of exhibition. Sooner or later the nihilist has to choose between the suicide, that has a
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. Quentin Agreed. But that also suggests that MWI has a measure problem except in the mind of an experimenter or witness who expect collapse probabilities. Richard -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Sensing the presence of God
According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: In beginning was Word. And the Word was written by the formula: T=0K. soc, You may be ripe to believe in string consciousness for its ontological basis is a cubic lattice of Calabi-Yau compact manifolds at absolute zero, T=0K, from which arithmetic consciousness emerges yanniru. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
bad strangers and good friends
Hi chris kramer Evidence ? God is like the cat burglar and never leaves traces. Generally, however, since God usually works through people (or angels), as once in a while in the Bible a stranger appears, or you might find a stranger (increased taxes) entering your life (usually to do evil), and if family or a friend, good will more likely happen. You also can do good (make a friend) and evil to yourself (accidents). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: chris kramer Receiver: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-01-08, 21:21:32 Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Why God sometimes has to let bad thingshappen tous. If the miracle leaves no evidence, what reason is on offer that there was a miracle? Roger, I am not sure what the point of your metaphor is if you do not see God as intervening, troubled waters or not. I suppose when it is admitted that evidence does not apply, we are going to be talking passed each other; unless we come to some stipulative broadened definition of evidence. Chris From: Roger Clough To: - mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:14 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Why God sometimes has to let bad things happen tous. Hi chris kramer CHRIS: God intervenes, piloting us through rough waters? If this is the thesis, then science should have something to say about it. ROGER: Rough waters is a metaphor, useful to get a complex point communicated. CHRIS: We should have evidence of such an intervention. And if the Bible is accurate, then there have been such interventions in the past in which God has helped his creations navigate through the world he has made--parting seas, resurrecting some people. But this disrupts the free will theodicy which claims that if God intervenes to save us, then we lose our free will. So which is it? ROGER: Rough waters is merely a metaphor, evidence doesn't apply. And nobody had to lose their free will when the virgin Mary conceived or when Jesus was resurrected. To a God who could create this marvellous universe, these events would have been child's play. CHRIS: (when it really matters--but not during the Holocaust!) so as to not remove FW? ROGER: The Holocaust was caused at least by one man (AH), who freely chose to do evil.CHRIS: God does not ever intervene thereby maintaining our autonomy-? ROGER: That seems to be the case, it was with Hitler. CHRIS: God does not intervene, and yet we have no FW? ROGER: Sorry, I don't follow your logic here. We have free will. CHRIS: There is no God but we are free in the relevant moral sense? There is no God and the determinists are right? Some other alternative? CHRIS: I imagine the second option might be the most palatable to theists; but then such interventions ought to be subject to scientific scrutiny and all of the theoretical and empirical methods that go along with it. I think the evidence for such interventions is quite scarce. ROGER: Miracles often don't leave much evidence. From: Roger Clough To: - mailto:%20mindbr...@yahoogroups.com; Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:13 AM Subject: [Mind and Brain] Why God sometimes has to let bad things happen to us. Hi chris kramer Although God is all-powerful in Heaven, where there is no death, but down here, where death is ever present, God must try to pilot us through sometimes rough waters,in which his options are more limited. Down here, good and evil --life and death--are inextricably mixed together:a) Men have been given free will so that they can be truly moral, but that also allows them to sometimes do evil to you. b) In this universe, according to Nature's plan, nature usually allows good things to happen, like the spring rains, but it can also allow badthings to happen, like your getting cancer or there being a tsunamio.Chris From: Roger Clough To: - mailto:%mailto:%2020mindbr...@yahoogroups.com; Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 10:19 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil Hi chris kramer 1) Calm down. 2) organize your thoughts. 3) Write simple declarative sentences. [Roger Clough], [mailto:rclough%40verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: chris kramer Receiver: mailto:MindBrain%40yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-01-03, 16:47:43 Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil So the equivalent of a parent spanking a child to correct child's behavior, let's say the child just hit his sister, is analogous to God striking humanity that strays with boils, hurricanes, disease...? Or allows genocide to take place. And as for proscribing the striking of a child as THE cause of moral degeneration (assuming there is one. Were times better in the US in the 50's?
Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
Hi Telmo Menezes In the Christian tradition, Satan. In the Platonic tradition (which Bruno knows much better than I do), I think the Demiurge. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 07:26:45 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:18:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here at different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five years or so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. It gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to get others to see the secret exit that I think I've found... Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away from the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about it before. Would you tell me about that secret exit? The secret exit is to reverse the assumption that consciousness occurs from functions or substances. Even though our human consciousness depends on a living human body (as far as we know for sure), that may be because of the degree of elaboration required to develop a human quality of experience, not because the fundamental capacity to perceive and participate depends on anything at all. Being inside of a human experience means being inside of an animal experience, an organism's experience, a cellular and molecular level experience. The alternative means picking an arbitrary level at which total lack of awareness suddenly changes into perception and participation for no conceivable reason. Instead of hanging on to the hope of finding such a level or gate, the secret is to see that there are many levels and gates but that they are qualitative, with each richer integration of qualia reframing the levels left behind in a particular way, and that way (another key) is to reduce it from a personal, animistic temporal flow of 1p meaning and significant preference to impersonal, mechanistic spatial bodies ruled by cause-effect and chance/probability. 1p and 3p are relativistic, but what joins them is the capacity to discern the difference. Rather than sense i/o being a function or logic take for granted, flip it over so that logic is the 3p shadow of sense. The 3p view is a frozen snapshot of countless 1p views as seen from the outside, and the qualities of the 3p view depend entirely on the nature of the 1p perceiver-partcipant. Sense is semiotic. Its qualitative layers are partitioned by habit and interpretive inertia, just as an ambiguous image looks different depending on how you personally direct your perception, or how a book that you read when you are 12 years old can have different meanings at 18 or 35. The meaning isn't just 'out there', it's literally, physically in here. If this is true, then the entire physical universe doubles in size, or really is squared as every exterior surface is a 3p representation of an entire history of 1p experience. Each acorn is a potential for oak tree forest, an encyclopedia of evolution and cosmology, so that the acorn is just a semiotic placeholder which is scaled and iconicized appropriately as a consequence of the relation of our human quality awareness and that of the evolutionary-historical-possible future contexts which we share with it (or the whole ensemble of experiences in which 'we' are both embedded as strands of the story of the universe rather than just human body and acorn body or cells and cells etc). To understand the common thread for all of it, always go back to the juxtaposition of 1p vs 3p, not *that* there is a difference, but the qualities of *what* those differences are - the sense of the juxtaposition. http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9by2XXw1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9boN5rP1qe3q3v.jpg That's were I get sense and motive or perception and participation. The symmetry is more primitive than either matter or mind, so that it isn't one which builds a bridge to the other but sense which divides itself on one level while retaining unity on another, creating not just dualism but a continuum of monism, dualism, dialectic, trichotomy, syzygy, etc. Many levels and perspectives on sense within sense. http://multisenserealism.com/about/ Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/elwBNPr92z4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as God. I don't think so. I have never understood what Sheldrake's morphism are, but they seem physical, from what I can understand. God is not physical, and by definition, the physical needs God, or truth, to exist or make sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: GOD means the reality in which you believe. Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark method and it only takes 4 simple steps! STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may be. STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. John K Clark Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Where do ideas come from?
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:17, Roger Clough wrote: Penrose's concept of consciousness as quantum wave collapse would seem, at least this morning, to be similar or analogous to my suggestion that ideas are fixed forms of consciousness created by some type of collapse of quntum wave collapse such as photons are formed by the collapse of a wavicle. A nonsensical theory of observation (collapse) needs a nonsensical theory of mind, perhaps. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:20, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You say, Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? Some Platonist have defended idealism, but the problem then is that we can no more an explanation for mind. With comp, we do get a simple theory of mind (computer science/ mathematical logic), and we can explain both consciousness and the illusion of matter from it, and this leads us back to the root of Platonism: Pythagorism. There is only numbers and numbers computable relations (in the outside view). The inside view get richer, though. All you need is arithmetical realism: the idea that 43 is prime in all possible situation, independently of the existence of humans, aliens, bacteria, etc. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by quantum fields are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which particles become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even material. With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian intellect gets stuck. Complexity arise in numbers due to the intrinsic relation between addition and multiplication, which notably makes possible computations and self-reference, and separate truth (God) from provability (intellect). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization. Hmm... That? why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others. Because
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). Space-time remains physical, here. There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. Then all forces are non physical. But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). Space-time remains physical, here. There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. Then all forces are non physical. But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers. Bruno Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? Richard points and lines word geometry? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? I am not quite sure, but it comes probably from the consistency of inconsistency (that is: Gödel's second incompleteness theorem). Actually it comes from the fact that Bf (inconsistency) gives an evolutionary advantage. Like the true Dt, Bf can be used to prove correct arithmetical propositions, to shorten the proofs of non trivial propositions, etc. I am able to conceive, some day, that all axioms of infinity are of this type (but this is a strong statement). So basically the hate, the falsehood and the ugliness comes from their local evolutionary advantage. A bit like robbing a bank can be justified, when the goal is to make money locally and quickly. A bit like when the first animal decided to feed on a vegetal, which is a form of molecules stealing, at some level. Then other animals steal the molecules of those vegetarians, and so on. This has generated the evolutionary heuristic: to eat or to be eaten, and sometimes that hurts. In the main line ... Bruno On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 09 Jan 2013, at 14:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes In the Christian tradition, Satan. In the Platonic tradition (which Bruno knows much better than I do), I think the Demiurge. Platonists are not so good on the bad, and the bad is really a complex problem. I suggest an answer in my post to Telmo. To give you a bad example, Plotinus explains that the bad occurs only to bad people. It warns that if you rape a woman, you will be punished. How: by becoming a woman in your next life, and by being raped. This is unfortunate, as it might gives the idea that if a woman attracts you up to the point you will rape her, it is OK, as it can only mean that you are raping some guy who raped a woman in his/her preceding life! But this will only justify and perpetuate the bad. It is not entirely nonsensical, and may be Plotinus was to quick. It can be related to the buddhist notion of karma, but here too, a danger remains to make sick and miserable people, if that was not enough, also feeling guilty. It leads to the idea that whatever bad happens to you comes from bad thing you did in a preceding life, and this means that it is always your fault. Basically, the idea of sin comes from this too. But this can be used by people who want to manipulate you, as history illustrates. With the explanation suggested to Telmo, I would say the bad exists due to its logical closeness to the good. Also good can be a protagorean virtue, meaning that if you try to define the good in some normative way, then the bad will be guarantied to happen. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 07:26:45 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? I am not quite sure, but it comes probably from the consistency of inconsistency (that is: Gödel's second incompleteness theorem). Doesn't the second incompleteness theorem imply that all knowable truths are local and that absolute truth is unrecognisable? That makes sense with my empirical understanding of realty: there are things that I find beautiful and others find ugly. Hate groups feel that they just have a correct understanding of reality, and so on. Actually it comes from the fact that Bf (inconsistency) gives an evolutionary advantage. Like the true Dt, Bf can be used to prove correct arithmetical propositions, to shorten the proofs of non trivial propositions, etc. I am able to conceive, some day, that all axioms of infinity are of this type (but this is a strong statement). So basically the hate, the falsehood and the ugliness comes from their local evolutionary advantage. A bit like robbing a bank can be justified, when the goal is to make money locally and quickly. A bit like when the first animal decided to feed on a vegetal, which is a form of molecules stealing, at some level. Then other animals steal the molecules of those vegetarians, and so on. This has generated the evolutionary heuristic: to eat or to be eaten, and sometimes that hurts. Ok - at the evolutionary level of abstraction. In the main line ... Bruno On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
Dear Bruno, you know we agree (mostly), you wrote lately that you are more agnostic than myself - what I doubt since your religion includes numbers and math(logic) and mine not. What I take for granted is our limited capability to learn them all about the *infinite complexity* of which we formulate a 'model' of the (already) knowable - as *adjusted* to our present level mind-function. There is 'evidence' of a steady growing of such knowledge over the millennia of (human) enlightenment. There is * N O * evidence about it's qualia - i.e. that we CAN comprehend any facet of that *infinite complexity*. We think in 'facts' and their factual(?) relations what may be absolutely false. I am not an atheist: I just do not fall for hearsay. I say it in all honesty that I dunno. Nor am I a materialist - consider the physical world (and conventional sciences) figments how our human mind (??) explains the not-understood phenomena we get a glimps of. You do it by math: an unexplained arithmetics, I do not do it at all. The best for the New Year John M On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Lol. Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of reifying the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of infinities in a too much materialist sense. If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration, that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes matter appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth. I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such argument in favor of comp. I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely. Bruno Richard points and lines word geometry? Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 09 Jan 2013, at 17:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? I am not quite sure, but it comes probably from the consistency of inconsistency (that is: Gödel's second incompleteness theorem). Doesn't the second incompleteness theorem imply that all knowable truths are local and that absolute truth is unrecognisable? Why? I don't think so. Gödel's incompleteness relies on the absoluteness of the elementary arithmetical truth. It only entails that all machine cannot know the whole thing, and not even give it a name. This can be made more precise in model theory, or set theory where we can define absolute and relative. That makes sense with my empirical understanding of realty: there are things that I find beautiful and others find ugly. Hate groups feel that they just have a correct understanding of reality, and so on. I am OK with this, except on elementary arithmetic. You need this just to define formalism, machine, etc. But even such kind of truth cannot be communicate as such, unless we first agree on some axioms, and on what axioms are. Actually it comes from the fact that Bf (inconsistency) gives an evolutionary advantage. Like the true Dt, Bf can be used to prove correct arithmetical propositions, to shorten the proofs of non trivial propositions, etc. I am able to conceive, some day, that all axioms of infinity are of this type (but this is a strong statement). So basically the hate, the falsehood and the ugliness comes from their local evolutionary advantage. A bit like robbing a bank can be justified, when the goal is to make money locally and quickly. A bit like when the first animal decided to feed on a vegetal, which is a form of molecules stealing, at some level. Then other animals steal the molecules of those vegetarians, and so on. This has generated the evolutionary heuristic: to eat or to be eaten, and sometimes that hurts. Ok - at the evolutionary level of abstraction. Well, OK. It still hurts, and the hurting feeling seems to be something absolute. We cannot doubt a feeling of headache, even if we can doubt the primary existence of the head. Bruno In the main line ... Bruno On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
Dear John, On 09 Jan 2013, at 17:30, John Mikes wrote: you know we agree (mostly), you wrote lately that you are more agnostic than myself - what I doubt since your religion includes numbers and math(logic) and mine not. My religion (I prefer to say: my favorite working hypothesis) is that we are machine (to be short). But this cannot even be explained if you doubt things like 43 is prime, etc. Then we can try refuting that theory, especially that I expain that the physical laws are theorems in that theory. I will be franc John, I have no clue by what you mean when you say that numbers are not part of your religion. We agree on the deep, I think. We disagree on the amount of agreement between us. I think it is greater than you think :) What I take for granted is our limited capability to learn them all about the infinite complexity of which we formulate a 'model' of the (already) knowable - as adjusted to our present level mind- function. Terms like limited, capacity are more complex to me than 2+2=4. I can hardly imagine an explanation of limited capacity which does not rely on natural numbers relations or something Turing equivalent. There is 'evidence' of a steady growing of such knowledge over the millennia of (human) enlightenment. There is N O evidence about it's qualia - i.e. that we CAN comprehend any facet of that infinite complexity. We think in 'facts' and their factual(?) relations what may be absolutely false. I am not an atheist: I just do not fall for hearsay. I say it in all honesty that I dunno. Nor am I a materialist - consider the physical world (and conventional sciences) figments how our human mind (??) explains the not-understood phenomena we get a glimps of. You do it by math: an unexplained arithmetics, I do not do it at all. It is nice to recognize our ignorance, which can only be abyssal (probably so with comp). But this is not a reason to try theories, as this is the only chance to be shown wrong, and to learn a little bit. If you don't do it at all, which is quite wise, you get the empty theory, which is irrefutable, but explains too much. I am just *trying* to get an idea of what is going on. The best for the New Year ? I thought you were not believing in arithmetic :) Best wishes, Bruno John M On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Lol. Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of reifying the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of infinities in a too much materialist sense. But Bruno, you just said that matter came from infinities of discrete number relations If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration, that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes matter appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth. I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such argument in favor of comp. I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely. Bruno Are you granting that QM laws are arithmetic theorems on the level as those of Godel and Church? So you can argue from them like they were axioms? Richard Richard points and lines word geometry? Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, I publish this before. It made some physicists rather nervous against me, so that I find worthy to vindicate it. I propose the comp suicide and immortality even well before. OK, this is only anecdote. But you can see that I made the Tegmark point in my 1991 Mechanism and Personal Identity paper, i.e. the point that the witnesses are increasingly astonished, and not the experimenter, who can actually easily predict that astonishment. I made that point to illustrate the relativity of the points of view in the comp setting, and the fact that the HP events (the first person white rabbits) although first person impossible, are still possible and highly probable in the 3p view of the first person of others. David Nyman's heuristic makes me think that they could be zombie, but I am not sure this can work with comp. It is not an important point, as we don't need this for the UDA. a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM +collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. OK. But the probabilities for any amount of money that you can win individually remains the same with MWI and collapse. MWI is just more fair ontologically, because all the possible winners exist, and indeed the descendent of the two first win have got something, but they got it with the same probability with the collapse, at each state of the procedure. They just don't exist, in the non lucky collapse scenario. You give only a reason to prefer more, or to fear more (if you think to the bad rare events), the MWI than collapse. What would you say to someone telling you that he prefers collapse, as with collapse, you have 1/100 to win some dollars, and 99/100 to lose, but there will be only one winner possible and only one loser. And in the MWI, there is always one winner and 99 losers! (times infinity!). So if the question is in making more people happy and less people unhappy, may be collapse is preferable at the start (with that kind of reasoning). For the witnesses, your bet is more socially fair, but not in way making possible for them to test MWI or ~MWI. Bruno Quentin -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I sense God's presence. That's nice, but how do you know (and more important how do we know) if you are sensing a omnipotent being who created the universe or if you are sensing a bad potato that you ate yesterday? I've never had a mystical experience, but if I did I'd have the courtesy to keep my mouth shut about it if the evidence for its validity was available only to myself. Even if I had discovered a new fact about the nature of reality there would be no way to communicate the truth about it to others. And even if you are certain about it you can't be certain that you should be certain about it, because you can be 100% sure about something and still be dead wrong, in fact it's very common, just look at Muslim suicide bombers. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
2013/1/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, I publish this before. It made some physicists rather nervous against me, so that I find worthy to vindicate it. I propose the comp suicide and immortality even well before. OK, this is only anecdote. But you can see that I made the Tegmark point in my 1991 Mechanism and Personal Identity paper, i.e. the point that the witnesses are increasingly astonished, and not the experimenter, who can actually easily predict that astonishment. I made that point to illustrate the relativity of the points of view in the comp setting, and the fact that the HP events (the first person white rabbits) although first person impossible, are still possible and highly probable in the 3p view of the first person of others. David Nyman's heuristic makes me think that they could be zombie, but I am not sure this can work with comp. It is not an important point, as we don't need this for the UDA. a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. OK. But the probabilities for any amount of money that you can win individually remains the same with MWI and collapse. MWI is just more fair ontologically, because all the possible winners exist, and indeed the descendent of the two first win have got something, but they got it with the same probability with the collapse, at each state of the procedure. They just don't exist, in the non lucky collapse scenario. You give only a reason to prefer more, or to fear more (if you think to the bad rare events), the MWI than collapse. What would you say to someone telling you that he prefers collapse, as with collapse, you have 1/100 to win some dollars, and 99/100 to lose, but there will be only one winner possible and only one loser. And in the MWI, there is always one winner and 99 losers! (times infinity!). So if the question is in making more people happy and less people unhappy, may be collapse is preferable at the start (with that kind of reasoning). For the witnesses, your bet is more socially fair, but not in way making possible for them to test MWI or ~MWI. I still stand on repeated improbable outcome implies either MWI or QM false. If it's not the case then a 1/10⁶ probability outcome doesn't mean anything... if you notice 10⁹ validated outcome of a prior probability of 1/10⁶ I would say your prior probability calculus is wrong, if it's from your theory, I would say that your theory has been disprove. The point is in QM+collapse such outcome as 1/10⁶^10⁹ probability of occurence, it could not happen in our current universe lifetime *without* a *very good* explanation principle. Hence if that happened, I would say QM+collapse is falsified. *But* in MWI, such outcome **do** happen, probability calculus is not about happening but about distribution in MWI (contrary to QM+collapse) so it still stand. So if you see such event, you're left choosing between a new theory or MWI... QM+collapse *without* a very good explanation principle for such improbable occurence should be disproven... In MWI you have that good explanation principle, which is in MWI it *does* happen. Quentin Bruno
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god-like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'? A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods. Then later he evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. Yes, it must
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 1/9/2013 3:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. Did you bother to calculate the expected value of playing this game? It's $98/0.99 whether you bet on survival or death. And since $98/0.99$100 you had to start with, it's better not to play at all. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/9/2013 3:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. Did you bother to calculate the expected value of playing this game? It's $98/0.99 whether you bet on survival or death. And since $98/0.99$100 you had to start with, it's better not to play at all. ?? you only lose on first bet if the experimenter die, which in MWI happens in 99% of the worlds... so discounting that *first* and only bet where you lose, you win 100$ every time till the experimenter die. On 2nd bet, you win nothing if the experimenter die (100$ (from first bet) +100$ (from winning first bet)-100$(from losing second bet). At the third bet, you win 100$ if the experimenter die... and 100$ more every time you see the experimenter survive. Only on the first bet when the experimenter die you lose 100$ (and in that case, there is no more bet possible as there is no more experimenter). But after the second bet, all worlds following that 2nd bet if MWI is true, contains *only* winner witness. Quentin Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 9 January 2013 18:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: * David Nyman's heuristic makes me think that they could be zombie, but I am not sure this can work with comp.* Don't forget that we are speaking only of a heuristic, or guide for thought. The idea is to evaluate what consequences might follow, for the phenomenon of observation in general, if it were to be considered to be the exclusive property of a single, abstract knower which continuously sampled, one by one, the set of all possible observer moments putatively associable with some underlying 3p system. It is not however, as such, a proposal for a novel mechanism of any sort. Consequently ISTM that any fears relating to zombies would be justified only if one had a principled reason to suppose that observable continuations of very low measure would somehow be inaccessible to such a heuristic. My contention is that this could not be so, by definition, but that nonetheless such continuations would be highly atypical events in the universal stream of consciousness. By this I don't simply mean that they are unusual in themselves, but rather that any given OM (like the one you are experiencing when you read this) is very unlikely to be such a continuation. In terms of the heuristic, all experiences in the universal stream are alike partitioned from each other by the intrinsic structure of global memory, but some experiences are destined to be remembered much less frequently than others. Of course, in some sense, whatever is being observed is always a zombie (i.e. we cannot discern consciousness by observable phenomena alone) but this should not be understood to mean that the relevant OMs, associated with each zombie avatar, are not accessible in due course and in due measure. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that. Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. Empirical proofs can be ostensive. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. Brent But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options,
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 1/9/2013 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. ?? Surely you mean a scientific theory is always based on a religion by which you probably mean some basic assumptions. But it doesn't follow that science as a whole is based on a (singular?) religion. So what's your religion, Bruno? What are its tenets that you believe on faith? Who are the adherents? Brent Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 1/9/2013 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/9/2013 3:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. Did you bother to calculate the expected value of playing this game? It's $98/0.99 whether you bet on survival or death. And since $98/0.99$100 you had to start with, it's better not to play at all. ?? you only lose on first bet if the experimenter die, which in MWI happens in 99% of the worlds... so discounting that *first* and only bet where you lose, you win 100$ every time till the experimenter die. On 2nd bet, you win nothing if the experimenter die (100$ (from first bet) +100$ (from winning first bet)-100$(from losing second bet). At the third bet, you win 100$ if the experimenter die... and 100$ more every time you see the experimenter survive. Only on the first bet when the experimenter die you lose 100$ (and in that case, there is no more bet possible as there is no more experimenter). Let E=expected value of playing the game by always betting on survival E = 0.99(-$100) + 0.01($100 + E) Solve for E == E=98/0.99 Let F=expected value of playing the game and always betting on death F = 0.99($100) + 0.01(-$100 + F) solution is left as an exercise to the reader. Brent But after the second bet, all worlds following that 2nd bet if MWI is true, contains *only* winner witness. Quentin Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 1/9/2013 2:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: We start each with 100$ that we use to make the first bet, the column contains the $ we have in our pocket after the bet depending on the result. I don't know what Me and Brent mean in this? betting on survival or death? bet n° Experimenter surviveExperimenter die bet n° ME BRENT ME BRENT 1 200$ (win 100$) 0$ (lost 100$) 0$ (lost 100$) 200$ (win 100$) 2 300$ (win 100$) -100$ (lost 100$) 100$ (lost 100$) 100$ (win 100$) 3 400$ (win 100$) -200$ (lost 100$) 200$ (lost 100$) 0$ (win 100$) 4 500$ (win 100$) -300$ (lost 100$) 300$ (lost 100$) -100$ (win 100$) ... All bets on the column 'experimenter die' are finals, no more bets can be put after because the experimenter is dead and won't revive. Yes, that's why in the equation E = 0.99(-$100) + 0.01($100 + E) there is no +E in the first parentheses; 99% of time there is no continuation. Only on the first bet, do I lose money (yes it 99% of the resulting world *after and only* the first bet. But after that first bet if the experimenter has survived *all* next bet are winner bet (in *all* worlds weither the experimenter lives or not making it a final bet). But his survival is rare, so all those good looking 200$, 300$,...are rare. You write outcomes, but with not probabilities - that's not how to calculate expected values. I stand by my analysis. Brent Regards, Quentin 2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/9/2013 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/9/2013 3:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. Did you bother to calculate the expected value of playing this game? It's $98/0.99 whether you bet on survival or death. And since $98/0.99$100 you had to start with, it's better not to play at all. ?? you only lose on first bet if the experimenter die, which in MWI happens in 99% of the worlds... so discounting that *first* and only bet where you lose, you win 100$ every time till the experimenter die. On 2nd bet, you win nothing if the experimenter die (100$ (from first bet) +100$ (from winning first bet)-100$(from losing second bet). At the third bet, you win 100$ if the experimenter die... and 100$ more every time you see the experimenter survive. Only on the first bet when the experimenter die you lose 100$ (and in that case, there is no more bet possible as there is no more experimenter). Let E=expected value of playing the game by always betting on survival E =
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Not in the dictionary. try again. On 09/01/2013, at 11:21 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: paroxistic -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Richard Truth is true !!! / Richard / Very good proof. . . . . . . and . . ‘. . by Beauty that beautiful things are beautiful . . . by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger, and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . . . . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . . . . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .’ about 2500 years ago Plato wrote. =. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). -- Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) therefore we think that they have infinite parameters . socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
2013/1/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/9/2013 2:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: We start each with 100$ that we use to make the first bet, the column contains the $ we have in our pocket after the bet depending on the result. I don't know what Me and Brent mean in this? betting on survival or death? Me = Betting on survival Brent = Betting on death bet n° Experimenter survive Experimenter die bet n° ME BRENT ME BRENT 1 200$ (win 100$) 0$ (lost 100$) 0$ (lost 100$) 200$ (win 100$) 2 300$ (win 100$) -100$ (lost 100$) 100$ (lost 100$) 100$ (win 100$) 3 400$ (win 100$) -200$ (lost 100$) 200$ (lost 100$) 0$ (win 100$) 4 500$ (win 100$) -300$ (lost 100$) 300$ (lost 100$) -100$ (win 100$) ... All bets on the column 'experimenter die' are finals, no more bets can be put after because the experimenter is dead and won't revive. Yes, that's why in the equation E = 0.99(-$100) + 0.01($100 + E) there is no +E in the first parentheses; 99% of time there is no continuation. Only on the first bet, do I lose money (yes it 99% of the resulting world *after and only* the first bet. But after that first bet if the experimenter has survived *all* next bet are winner bet (in *all* worlds weither the experimenter lives or not making it a final bet). But his survival is rare, so all those good looking 200$, 300$,...are rare. You write outcomes, but with not probabilities - that's not how to calculate expected values. I stand by my analysis. Brent Well let's see and let's count, if MWI is *true* (this is important and not to be overlooked) and let's take for the sake of argument as if after each bet the universe was split in 100 worlds : After first bet: There is one world where I have 200$ in my pocket and 99 worlds where I did lost 100$ and have now 0$ in my pocket. There is one world where you lost 100$ and have 0$ in your pocket and 99 where you did win 100$ and have 200$ in your pocket. The 99 you winners here are not elligible for a second bet (they are in a world where the experimenter is dead), only the you who lost the 100$ can do a second bet, likewise for the 99 me who lost 100$ they can't make a second bet, only the one who win. After the second bet: There is one world where I have 300$ in my pocket and 99 world where I have 100$ in my pocket (like before starting). There is one world where you have -100$ in your pocket and 99 world where you have 100$ in your pocket (remember that the you who's bet here was the one who lost the first bet). The 99 you who have now only 0$ in your pocket are not elligible for a third bet, only the one who lost and have now a 100$ debt can do a third bet, likewise, only the me who has won and has 300$ can make a third bet. After the third bet: There is one world where I have 400$ in my pocket and 99 world where I have 200$ in my pocket (100$ more than before starting). There is one world where you have -200$ in your pocket and 99 world where you have 0$ in your pocket (100$ less than before starting). The 99 you who have now a debt of 100$ are not elligible for a fourth bet, only the one who lost and have now a 200$ debt can do a fourth bet, likewise, only the me who has won and has 400$ can make a fourth bet. After the fourth bet: There is one world where I have 500$ in my pocket and 99 world where I have 300$ in my pocket (200$ more than before starting). There is one world where you have -300$ in your pocket and 99 world where you have -100$ in your pocket (200$ less than before starting). Let's just stop here and count: There are 99 versions of me who lost 100$. There is 1 version of me who has 500$ (400$ more). There are 99 versions of me who have 300$ (200$ more). There are 99 versions of me who have 200$ (100$ more). There are 99 versions of me who have 100$ (0$ more). Just here after the fourth bet, there are already 199 versions of me who are richer and *only* 99 versions who are poorer and 99 version who did not win or lost anything. There are 99 versions of you who win 100$. There is 1 version of you who has -300$ (400$ less). There are 99 versions of you who have -100$ (200$ less). There are 99 versions of you who have 0$ (100$ less). There are 99 versions of you who have 100$ (same as before starting). In this setup, only 99 version of you have win, but 199 versions of you have lost money and 99 versions of you did not win or lost anything. If you continue to bet on death, soon loser will vastly outnumber winners... Remember that if MWI is true *all* those world exists. In the contrary in a QM+collapse scenario, I agree *you should* bet on death because if the experimenter die... well he die, no branches where they are winners exists. So if MWI is true, you should bet the improbable and not the sure bet ! Regards, Quentin Regards, Quentin 2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/9/2013 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/9/2013
