date:20130121

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Could a blind man stub his toe ?

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? 
Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence?

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, 
which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put 
this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or 
possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this 
conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? 

Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster 
here I come?
-- 
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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
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: Re: Is there an aether ?

Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So the world did not exist before man ?

The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define 
all experience in the universe.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
Hi Craig, 

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for 
something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that 
critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless 
fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.

Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain 
that?

come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how 
one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not 
possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of 
sense. There has never been anything but sense.

Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
complexification of (this) universe?

Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.

What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the 
classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and 
decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me 
- faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and 
subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of 
multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being 
led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?

Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific 
theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?

My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of 
sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function 
of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other 
words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective 
perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent 
with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the 
phenomenon itself.

Craig

We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? 
What are we assuming about energy?

Craig 

On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 
Empty Space is not Empty! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 

The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational 
aether. 

No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  And 
gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.

Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space 
in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 

You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even though they 
don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic 
energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.

Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but 
from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a 
physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity 
if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason 
why we need a Higgs mechanism? 

Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got 
the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar icecapstoalsomelt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto

Hi meekerdb 

So there's no or little proof then. Just what I thought.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:35:20
Subject: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar 
icecapstoalsomelt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto


You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Brent

On 1/20/2013 11:36 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
Hi meekerdb 

Lead me to the proof.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-19, 15:22:30
Subject: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar icecapstoalso 
melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto


On 1/19/2013 3:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
Hi meekerdb  

IMHO the default position is that somebody has yet to prove that 
man's activities are warming the earth. 


A 'default position' is one taken in a state of ignorance.  If you're still 
ignorant of the evidence and the consensus of 99% of the world's climate 
scientists that's your own fault.


Or even that the earth is 
warming beyond statistical possibility. Consider this data :



Yes, I see that vertical red line at 0, which is really out of date since at 
'now' it would be off this graph at 394ppm

Brent

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13
-- 
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.

-- 
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: Science is a religion by itself.

Hi meekerdb 

You have faith that what Mencken said is true, am I not correct ?

- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 18:31:10
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to
believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt. The more
stupid the man the heavier his load of faith.
   --- H. L. Mencken

On 1/20/2013 1:31 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

 I believe . . . . .you believe
 your opinion . . . my opinion . ... . .
 your meaning . . . my meaning . .. . . .
 The opinion of opinion . . . . .
 The meaning of meaning . . . . .
 And so is endless.
 ===.
 I Believe in Order to Understand.

 St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said,
 ? believe in order to understand? (credo ut intelligam)
 and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury,
 echoed his statement in similar fashion:
 ? do not seek to understand in order that I may believe,
 but I believe in order to understand.?
 These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason
 must be preceded by faith in the proper object.
 Not faith in ourselves or science,
 but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself
 in His Son Jesus Christ.
 Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews
 when he said ?y faith we understand that the universe
 was formed at God? command, so that what is seen was
 not made out of what was visible.? (Hebrews 11:3 ? NIV)
 http://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/i-believe-in-order-to-understand/

 I cannot believe in such method , in such way.
 I need to understand in order to believe.
 To believe in God, Souls . . .metaphysics . . .. etc
 I need proof, scientific proof with physical laws and formulas.
 =.
 Einstein said:
 ? One thing I have learned in a long life:
 that all our science, measured against reality,
 is primitive and childlike ?
 and yet it is the most precious thing we have.?

 Why our science ?s primitive and childlike? ?
 Because we don? know the basic things:
 what the vacuum is,
 what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
 what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
 what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc . . . etc.
 =.
 After 30 years of thinking about that we call ?hilosophy of physics
 ?
 I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist.
 Science is a religion by itself.
 Why?
 Because the God can create and govern the Universe
 only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
 Here is the scheme of His plan.
 =.
 God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= , p= 0, t= .
 2. Particles:
 C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
 ... 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW :
 HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . .
 6. Proton: (p).
 7.
 The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
 a) electromagnetic,
 b) nuclear,
 c) biological.
 8. The Physical Laws:
 a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy / Mass,
 b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
 c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
 ===.

 I am not physicist and not philosopher.
 I call myself a ?easant?.
 And if a peasant can understand the Scheme (!) of Universe ,
 then everybody, using usual human logic, can understand too.
 ==.
 Best wishes.
 Israel Sadovnik 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.

-- 
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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

Hi spudboy100 

Yes, God is an alien intelligence because he does many
things we consider unjust.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: spudboy100 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 21:11:13
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy


Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, 
which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put 
this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or 
possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this 
conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? 

Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster 
here I come?

-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

2013-01-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 The assumption by scientists is that consciousness is caused by the
 brain,


 We could also assume that ground beef is caused by the grocery store, but
 that doesn't tell us about ground beef.

Do you disagree that it is assumed by scientists that consciousness is
caused by the brain?

 and if brain function doesn't change, consciousness doesn't
 change either. So swapping out atoms in the brain for different atoms
 of the same kind leaves brain function unchanged and therefore leaves
 consciousness unchanged also.


 An idea can change the function of the brain as much as a chemical change -
 maybe more so, especially if we are talking about a life altering idea. To
 me, the fact that physics seems more generic to us than chemistry which
 seems more generic than biology is a function of the ontology of matter
 rather than a mechanism for consciousness. The whole idea of brain function
 or consciousness being 'unchanged' is broken concept to begin with. It
 assumes a normative baseline at an arbitrary level of description. In
 reality, of course brain function and consciousness are constantly changing,
 sometimes because of chemistry, sometimes in spite of it.

Do you disagree that swapping a carbon atom for another carbon atom in
the brain will leave brain function and consciousness unchanged?

 Also, swapping out atoms in the brain
 for different atoms of a different but related type, such as a
 different isotope, leaves brain function unchanged and leaves
 consciousness unchanged. This is because the brain works using
 chemical rather than nuclear reactions.


 That's because on the level of nuclear reactions there is no brain. That
 doesn't mean that changing atoms has no effect on some non-human level of
 experience, only that our native experience is distant enough that we don't
 notice a difference. Some people might notice a difference, who knows? I
 wouldn't think that people could tell the difference between different kinds
 of light of the same spectrum, but they can, even down to a geographic
 specificity in some cases.

The field of nuclear medicine involves injecting radiolabeled
chemicals into subjects and then scanning for them with radiosensitive
equipment. This is how PET scanners work, for example. The idea is
that if the injected chemical is similar enough to normal biological
matter it will replace this matter without affecting function,
including brain function and consciousness. You could say this is a
practical application of the theory that consciousness is
substrate-independent, verified thousands of times every day in
clinical situations.

 It is an assumption but it is
 consistent with every observation ever made.


 The consistency doesn't surprise me, it's the interpretation which I see as
 an unscientific assumption.

So how do you explain the replacement of brain matter with different
but functionally equivalent matter leaving consciousness unchanged?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Two Schrodinger cats



On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 17 Jan 2013, at 13:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi all,

Naive question...

Not being a physicists, I only have a pop-science level of  
understanding of the MWI. I imagine the multi-verse as a tree,  
where each time there is more than one possible quantum state we  
get a branch. I imagine my consciousness moving down the tree.


Suppose Mary performs the Schrodinger's cat experiment in her  
house and Joe does the same in his house. They both keep the  
animals in the boxes and don't take a peak. Don't tell PETA. They  
meet for a coffe in a nearby coffeeshop.


So now we have four possible universes where Mary and Joe can  
meet. But from the double slit experiment we know that the cats  
are both still dead+alive in the current universe. Right? So are  
Mary and Joe meeting in the fours universes at the same time?


Let a = alive, d = dead, and the subscript 1 and 2 distinguishes  
the two cats, which are independent. Both cats are in a superposed  
state dead + alive:


(a1 + d1) and (a2 + d2),

so the two cats configuration is given by (a1 + d1) * (a2 + d2),  
with * the tensor product.
This products is linear and so this give a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 +  
d2*a2.
Mary and Joe don't interact with any cats, so the global state is  
also a direct tensor product M * J * (a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 +  
d2*a2), which gives:



M * J *a1*a2 + M * J *a1*d2 + M * J *d1*a2 + M * J *d2*a2

You can add the normalization constant, which are 1/sqrt(2)  
times 1/sqrt(2) = 1/2=


1/2 M * J *a1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *a1*d2 + 1/2 M * J *d1*a2 + 1/2 M * J  
*d2*a2


So the answer to your question is yes.

Nice. Thanks Bruno!


Welcome!




To be sure, the normalizing factor does not mean there are four  
universes, but most plausibly an infinity of universes, only  
partitioned in four parts with identical quantum relative measure.


Sure, I get that.

Am I a set of universes?


You can put it in that way. You can be identified by the set of the  
universes/computations going through your actual states. But that  
is really a logician, or category theoretician manner of speaking:  
the identification is some natural morphism.


Well I think Bohr made the trick for the atoms. I think he defines  
once an atom by the set of macroscopic apparatus capable of  
measuring some set of observable.


That can be useful for some reasoning, but also misleading if taken  
literally, without making clear the assumed ontology.


Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's  
take.


It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As  
long as we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied  
fields.
Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all glass  
of beers with the same price :)


Of course, I meant As long as we DON'T identify identity and morphism  
it is OK, in the applied fields..


Bruno












Logicians often identify a world with a set of proposition (the  
proposition true in that world).
But they identify also a proposition with the a set of worlds (the  
worlds in which that proposition is true).
Doing both identification, you can see a world as a set of set of  
worlds. That is useful for some semantics of modal logics.


What textbook would you recommend on modal logic? (I'm relatively  
confortable with first-order logic from studying classical AI and  
also from Prolog).


The two books by George Boolos (1979, 1993), on the self-referential  
logics (G, G*, S4Grz) contains a quite good introduction to modal  
logic.


The best textbook on modal logic is in my opinion is the book by  
Brian Chellas: Modal logic an introduction.


http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Logic-Introduction-Brian-Chellas/dp/0521295157

A recreative introduction to modal logic and self-reference (the  
logic G) is Forever Undecided by Raymond Smullyan.



(A good book on first order logic, with the main theorems  
(deduction, completeness and soundness, Löwenheim-Skolem,  
incompleteness) is Elliott Mendelson.)







Those are examples of dualities, which abounds in logic, and which  
can be very useful when used which much care, and very misleading  
when forgetting that a morphism is not an identity relation.






To get the exact number of universes, we should first solve the  
marriage of gravity with the quantum. And with comp, we should  
also derive the Quantum from arithmetic (but that's not true,  
actually: with comp we have directly the infinities of universes).


Ok, sounds good but I have to dig deeper. (moving my own  
understanding of what you're saying beyond the mushiness that it  
currently is)


I can recommend the reading of the book by David Albert Quantum

Re: the curse of materialism



On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
 That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in  
the
 mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some  
kind

 of underlying conputation)

Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why  
3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic  
arithmetic takes some work).


Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum  
of distance.


In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit  
exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth.  You  
are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem  
for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure  
mathematics exists make any sense to me.


I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear.


Of course.




My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern  
recognition,


Can you define pattern recognition without arithmetic or equivalent?
I doubt.

We have a different methodology. I start from what people agree on,  
like simple arithmetic, and computationalism, then i derive from this.  
But you start from your intuition.


If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot  
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of  
computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you  
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a  
literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and  
multiplication in the sense I would wait for.




which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material  
realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of  
other private representations, it has no public existence which is  
independent of sense,


Assuming what?



nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to  
any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist  
independently of sense.


Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that.


In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the  
foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or  
semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have  
already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this.  
It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine  
cannot support thinking.


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.

Re: Two Schrodinger cats

2013-01-21 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 17 Jan 2013, at 13:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi all,

 Naive question...

 Not being a physicists, I only have a pop-science level of
 understanding of the MWI. I imagine the multi-verse as a tree, where each
 time there is more than one possible quantum state we get a branch. I
 imagine my consciousness moving down the tree.

 Suppose Mary performs the Schrodinger's cat experiment in her house and
 Joe does the same in his house. They both keep the animals in the boxes and
 don't take a peak. Don't tell PETA. They meet for a coffe in a nearby
 coffeeshop.

 So now we have four possible universes where Mary and Joe can meet. But
 from the double slit experiment we know that the cats are both still
 dead+alive in the current universe. Right? So are Mary and Joe meeting in
 the fours universes at the same time?


 Let a = alive, d = dead, and the subscript 1 and 2 distinguishes the two
 cats, which are independent. Both cats are in a superposed state dead +
 alive:

 (a1 + d1) and (a2 + d2),

 so the two cats configuration is given by (a1 + d1) * (a2 + d2), with
 * the tensor product.
 This products is linear and so this give a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2.
 Mary and Joe don't interact with any cats, so the global state is also a
 direct tensor product M * J * (a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2), which gives:


 M * J *a1*a2 + M * J *a1*d2 + M * J *d1*a2 + M * J *d2*a2

 You can add the normalization constant, which are 1/sqrt(2) times
 1/sqrt(2) = 1/2=

 1/2 M * J *a1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *a1*d2 + 1/2 M * J *d1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *d2*a2

 So the answer to your question is yes.


 Nice. Thanks Bruno!


 Welcome!




 To be sure, the normalizing factor does not mean there are four
 universes, but most plausibly an infinity of universes, only partitioned in
 four parts with identical quantum relative measure.


 Sure, I get that.

 Am I a set of universes?


 You can put it in that way. You can be identified by the set of the
 universes/computations going through your actual states. But that is really
 a logician, or category theoretician manner of speaking: the identification
 is some natural morphism.

 Well I think Bohr made the trick for the atoms. I think he defines once
 an atom by the set of macroscopic apparatus capable of measuring some set
 of observable.

 That can be useful for some reasoning, but also misleading if taken
 literally, without making clear the assumed ontology.


 Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's take.


 It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As long
 as we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied fields.
 Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all glass of
 beers with the same price :)







 Logicians often identify a world with a set of proposition (the
 proposition true in that world).
 But they identify also a proposition with the a set of worlds (the worlds
 in which that proposition is true).
 Doing both identification, you can see a world as a set of set of worlds.
 That is useful for some semantics of modal logics.


 What textbook would you recommend on modal logic? (I'm relatively
 confortable with first-order logic from studying classical AI and also from
 Prolog).


 The two books by George Boolos (1979, 1993), on the self-referential
 logics (G, G*, S4Grz) contains a quite good introduction to modal logic.

 The best textbook on modal logic is in my opinion is the book by Brian
 Chellas: Modal logic an introduction.

 http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Logic-Introduction-Brian-Chellas/dp/0521295157

 A recreative introduction to modal logic and self-reference (the logic G)
 is Forever Undecided by Raymond Smullyan.


 (A good book on first order logic, with the main theorems (deduction,
 completeness and soundness, Löwenheim-Skolem, incompleteness) is Elliott
 Mendelson.)


Thanks! I keep thinking that this list might benefit from a wiki.








 Those are examples of dualities, which abounds in logic, and which can be
 very useful when used which much care, and very misleading when forgetting
 that a morphism is not an identity relation.





 To get the exact number of universes, we should first solve the
 marriage of gravity with the quantum. And with comp, we should also derive
 the Quantum from arithmetic (but that's not true, actually: with comp we
 have directly the infinities of universes).


 Ok, sounds good but I have to dig deeper. (moving my own understanding of
 what you're saying beyond the mushiness that it currently is)


 I can recommend the reading of the book by David Albert Quantum
 Mechanics and experience(*). It is short and readable.


 Nice. I

Re: Two Schrodinger cats

2013-01-21 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
  On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 
 
 
 
  On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 wrote:
 
 
  On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 
 
 
 
  On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 wrote:
 
 
  On 17 Jan 2013, at 13:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 
  Hi all,
 
  Naive question...
 
  Not being a physicists, I only have a pop-science level of
 understanding
  of the MWI. I imagine the multi-verse as a tree, where each time
 there is
  more than one possible quantum state we get a branch. I imagine my
  consciousness moving down the tree.
 
  Suppose Mary performs the Schrodinger's cat experiment in her house
 and
  Joe does the same in his house. They both keep the animals in the
 boxes and
  don't take a peak. Don't tell PETA. They meet for a coffe in a nearby
  coffeeshop.
 
  So now we have four possible universes where Mary and Joe can meet.
 But
  from the double slit experiment we know that the cats are both still
  dead+alive in the current universe. Right? So are Mary and Joe
 meeting in
  the fours universes at the same time?
 
 
  Let a = alive, d = dead, and the subscript 1 and 2 distinguishes the
 two
  cats, which are independent. Both cats are in a superposed state dead +
  alive:
 
  (a1 + d1) and (a2 + d2),
 
  so the two cats configuration is given by (a1 + d1) * (a2 + d2), with
 *
  the tensor product.
  This products is linear and so this give a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2.
  Mary and Joe don't interact with any cats, so the global state is also
 a
  direct tensor product M * J * (a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2), which
 gives:
 
 
  M * J *a1*a2 + M * J *a1*d2 + M * J *d1*a2 + M * J *d2*a2
 
  You can add the normalization constant, which are 1/sqrt(2) times
  1/sqrt(2) = 1/2=
 
  1/2 M * J *a1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *a1*d2 + 1/2 M * J *d1*a2 + 1/2 M * J
 *d2*a2
 
  So the answer to your question is yes.
 
 
  Nice. Thanks Bruno!
 
 
  Welcome!
 
 
 
 
  To be sure, the normalizing factor does not mean there are four
  universes, but most plausibly an infinity of universes, only
 partitioned in
  four parts with identical quantum relative measure.
 
 
  Sure, I get that.
 
  Am I a set of universes?
 
 
  You can put it in that way. You can be identified by the set of the
  universes/computations going through your actual states. But that is
 really
  a logician, or category theoretician manner of speaking: the
 identification
  is some natural morphism.
 
  Well I think Bohr made the trick for the atoms. I think he defines once
 an
  atom by the set of macroscopic apparatus capable of measuring some set
 of
  observable.
 
  That can be useful for some reasoning, but also misleading if taken
  literally, without making clear the assumed ontology.
 
 
  Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's take.
 
 
  It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As long
 as
  we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied fields.
  Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all glass of
  beers with the same price :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Logicians often identify a world with a set of proposition (the
  proposition true in that world).
  But they identify also a proposition with the a set of worlds (the
 worlds
  in which that proposition is true).
  Doing both identification, you can see a world as a set of set of
 worlds.
  That is useful for some semantics of modal logics.
 
 
  What textbook would you recommend on modal logic? (I'm relatively
  confortable with first-order logic from studying classical AI and also
 from
  Prolog).
 
 
  The two books by George Boolos (1979, 1993), on the self-referential
 logics
  (G, G*, S4Grz) contains a quite good introduction to modal logic.
 
  The best textbook on modal logic is in my opinion is the book by Brian
  Chellas: Modal logic an introduction.
 
 
 http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Logic-Introduction-Brian-Chellas/dp/0521295157
 
  A recreative introduction to modal logic and self-reference (the logic
 G) is
  Forever Undecided by Raymond Smullyan.
 
 
  (A good book on first order logic, with the main theorems (deduction,
  completeness and soundness, Löwenheim-Skolem, incompleteness) is Elliott
  Mendelson.)
 
 

 Here is a link to what seems to be a very complete set of tutorials on
 logic:
 https://sites.google.com/site/theoremeorg/
 Richard


Thanks Richard! Very nice.




 
 
 
 
  Those are examples of dualities, which abounds in logic, and which can
 be
  very useful when used which much care, and very misleading when
 forgetting
  that a morphism is not an identity relation.
 
 
 
 
 
  To get the exact number of universes, we should first solve the
  marriage of gravity with the quantum. And with comp, we should also
 derive
  the Quantum from arithmetic (but that's

Re: Two Schrodinger cats

2013-01-21 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 17 Jan 2013, at 13:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi all,

 Naive question...

 Not being a physicists, I only have a pop-science level of
 understanding of the MWI. I imagine the multi-verse as a tree, where each
 time there is more than one possible quantum state we get a branch. I
 imagine my consciousness moving down the tree.

 Suppose Mary performs the Schrodinger's cat experiment in her house and
 Joe does the same in his house. They both keep the animals in the boxes and
 don't take a peak. Don't tell PETA. They meet for a coffe in a nearby
 coffeeshop.

 So now we have four possible universes where Mary and Joe can meet. But
 from the double slit experiment we know that the cats are both still
 dead+alive in the current universe. Right? So are Mary and Joe meeting in
 the fours universes at the same time?


 Let a = alive, d = dead, and the subscript 1 and 2 distinguishes the two
 cats, which are independent. Both cats are in a superposed state dead +
 alive:

 (a1 + d1) and (a2 + d2),

 so the two cats configuration is given by (a1 + d1) * (a2 + d2), with
 * the tensor product.
 This products is linear and so this give a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2.
 Mary and Joe don't interact with any cats, so the global state is also a
 direct tensor product M * J * (a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2), which gives:


 M * J *a1*a2 + M * J *a1*d2 + M * J *d1*a2 + M * J *d2*a2

 You can add the normalization constant, which are 1/sqrt(2) times
 1/sqrt(2) = 1/2=

 1/2 M * J *a1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *a1*d2 + 1/2 M * J *d1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *d2*a2

 So the answer to your question is yes.


 Nice. Thanks Bruno!


 Welcome!




 To be sure, the normalizing factor does not mean there are four
 universes, but most plausibly an infinity of universes, only partitioned in
 four parts with identical quantum relative measure.


 Sure, I get that.

 Am I a set of universes?


 You can put it in that way. You can be identified by the set of the
 universes/computations going through your actual states. But that is really
 a logician, or category theoretician manner of speaking: the identification
 is some natural morphism.

 Well I think Bohr made the trick for the atoms. I think he defines once
 an atom by the set of macroscopic apparatus capable of measuring some set
 of observable.

 That can be useful for some reasoning, but also misleading if taken
 literally, without making clear the assumed ontology.


 Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's take.


 It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As long
 as we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied fields.
 Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all glass of
 beers with the same price :)


 Of course, I meant As long as we DON'T identify identity and morphism it
 is OK, in the applied fields..


Got it!



 Bruno











 Logicians often identify a world with a set of proposition (the
 proposition true in that world).
 But they identify also a proposition with the a set of worlds (the worlds
 in which that proposition is true).
 Doing both identification, you can see a world as a set of set of worlds.
 That is useful for some semantics of modal logics.


 What textbook would you recommend on modal logic? (I'm relatively
 confortable with first-order logic from studying classical AI and also from
 Prolog).


 The two books by George Boolos (1979, 1993), on the self-referential
 logics (G, G*, S4Grz) contains a quite good introduction to modal logic.

 The best textbook on modal logic is in my opinion is the book by Brian
 Chellas: Modal logic an introduction.

 http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Logic-Introduction-Brian-Chellas/dp/0521295157

 A recreative introduction to modal logic and self-reference (the logic G)
 is Forever Undecided by Raymond Smullyan.


 (A good book on first order logic, with the main theorems (deduction,
 completeness and soundness, Löwenheim-Skolem, incompleteness) is Elliott
 Mendelson.)






 Those are examples of dualities, which abounds in logic, and which can be
 very useful when used which much care, and very misleading when forgetting
 that a morphism is not an identity relation.





 To get the exact number of universes, we should first solve the
 marriage of gravity with the quantum. And with comp, we should also derive
 the Quantum from arithmetic (but that's not true, actually: with comp we
 have directly the infinities of universes).


 Ok, sounds good but I have to dig deeper. (moving my own understanding of
 what you're saying beyond the mushiness that it currently is)


 I can recommend

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:04:10 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  The assumption by scientists is that consciousness is caused by the 
  brain, 
  
  
  We could also assume that ground beef is caused by the grocery store, 
 but 
  that doesn't tell us about ground beef. 

 Do you disagree that it is assumed by scientists that consciousness is 
 caused by the brain? 


No, but so what? Haven's scientists always agreed on the wrong ideas before 
a better one is available?
 


  and if brain function doesn't change, consciousness doesn't 
  change either. So swapping out atoms in the brain for different atoms 
  of the same kind leaves brain function unchanged and therefore leaves 
  consciousness unchanged also. 
  
  
  An idea can change the function of the brain as much as a chemical 
 change - 
  maybe more so, especially if we are talking about a life altering idea. 
 To 
  me, the fact that physics seems more generic to us than chemistry which 
  seems more generic than biology is a function of the ontology of matter 
  rather than a mechanism for consciousness. The whole idea of brain 
 function 
  or consciousness being 'unchanged' is broken concept to begin with. It 
  assumes a normative baseline at an arbitrary level of description. In 
  reality, of course brain function and consciousness are constantly 
 changing, 
  sometimes because of chemistry, sometimes in spite of it. 

 Do you disagree that swapping a carbon atom for another carbon atom in 
 the brain will leave brain function and consciousness unchanged? 


I don't believe that we will necessarily know that our consciousness is 
changed. Even LSD takes a few micrograms to have an effect that we notice. 
Changing one person in the city of New York with another may not change the 
city in any appreciably obvious way, but it's a matter of scale and 
proportion, not functional sequestering.
 


  Also, swapping out atoms in the brain 
  for different atoms of a different but related type, such as a 
  different isotope, leaves brain function unchanged and leaves 
  consciousness unchanged. This is because the brain works using 
  chemical rather than nuclear reactions. 
  
  
  That's because on the level of nuclear reactions there is no brain. That 
  doesn't mean that changing atoms has no effect on some non-human level 
 of 
  experience, only that our native experience is distant enough that we 
 don't 
  notice a difference. Some people might notice a difference, who knows? I 
  wouldn't think that people could tell the difference between different 
 kinds 
  of light of the same spectrum, but they can, even down to a geographic 
  specificity in some cases. 

 The field of nuclear medicine involves injecting radiolabeled 
 chemicals into subjects and then scanning for them with radiosensitive 
 equipment. This is how PET scanners work, for example. The idea is 
 that if the injected chemical is similar enough to normal biological 
 matter it will replace this matter without affecting function, 
 including brain function and consciousness. You could say this is a 
 practical application of the theory that consciousness is 
 substrate-independent, verified thousands of times every day in 
 clinical situations. 


That's because the radioactivity is mild. Heavy doses of gamma radiation 
are not without their effects on consciousness. Anything that you do on the 
nuclear level can potentially effect the chemical level, which can effect 
the biological level, etc. These levels have different qualities as well as 
quantitative scales so it is simplistic to approach it from a 
quantitative-only view. Awareness is qualities, not just quantities.


  It is an assumption but it is 
  consistent with every observation ever made. 
  
  
  The consistency doesn't surprise me, it's the interpretation which I see 
 as 
  an unscientific assumption. 

 So how do you explain the replacement of brain matter with different 
 but functionally equivalent matter leaving consciousness unchanged? 


The way I explain a blind person learning to use a cane. The remaining 
parts of the brain can use the prosthetic technology as a replacement for 
sub-personal perception and participation. There is, however, no 
replacement for personal participation.

Craig



 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
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/-/_jvETPTmZJQJ.
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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 Could a blind man stub his toe ?


Anyone can stub their toe.
 

  
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
 *Subject:* Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

  What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the 
 universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien 
 intelligence?

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 

  Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien 
 intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael 
 Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting 
 people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have 
 no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside 
 to this way of thinking? 
  
 Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti 
 monster here I come?

 -- 
 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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J.
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: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

Hi Craig Weinberg 


But nothing would exist for a blind man,
since he can see nothing.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18
Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy




On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Could a blind man stub his toe ?

Anyone can stub their toe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy


What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? 
Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence?

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 
Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, 
which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put 
this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or 
possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this 
conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? 

Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster 
here I come?
-- 
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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J.
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 There is no field of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect of  
it would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon.


 To say that there is no field of theology is equivalent to say  
I know the answer to the fundamental questions,


It is equivalent to saying that the field of theology has never  
once in its entire history explained anything about anything.


It led to monism and science. You confuse theology and post 500  
occidental use of the field. Theology did come up with the idea that  
there is a reality, and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of  
it. The religious feeling starts when you develop faith, like when you  
believe that you have parents and that things occurs for a reason.  
Without spiritual faith there is no science at all, nor even technic.





And it is equivalent to saying that many things about the universe  
are so mysterious that I don't even have a theory to explain them  
because unlike theologians I believe that no theory is far superior  
to a theory that is obviously very very very stupid. I define a  
stupid theory not as a theory that is necessarily wrong (the Steady  
State Theory was wrong but not stupid) but as a theory that explains  
nothing, such as the God theory.


Because you are unaware that the God theory is the Mother of all  
theories, even if the progresses consists to revised it again and  
again. The physical universe theory is an intanciation of the God  
theory, it explains a few thing, but it is inconsistent with  
computationalism. That is nice because the new theory, false or not,  
gives at least an example of what could be like an explanation of the  
origin of the (appearance of) the physical universe.








 I'll tell you what I am aware of, that many people, such as  
yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word  
God


  I gave you my definition,

 That is true you did, you said by definition, God is the  
ultimate reality.


 which is close to the original one used by those where the first  
to  practice the scientific attitude in a systematic way, in *all*  
field.


That is also true, everybody believes in that. And so I want to  
thank you for buying my course and congratulate you for finishing  
the first 2 steps in my patented home study course BECOMING A  
LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 EASY STEPS, namely:


STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't  
matter what it is.


Exemple:
- the natural numbers and their + and * laws.
- the particles and forces.




STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may  
be.


This will work or not depending on what you assume at the start.  
Numbers and + and * will not work per se. you will need a (meta)- 
notion of arithmetical truth, which needs a (tiny but non null) amount  
of faith. this can work for the outer God, but you might abandon  
some attribute, like personhood (open problem).
You can take the particles and forces, and that is (basically)  
Aristotelian theology. But we have discover that it is inconsistent  
with computationalism. But a priori that's OK for some notion of God  
or ultimate reality.







Now you just need to complete the remaining 2 steps to become a  
official liberal theologian:


STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God.


That contradict step 1, or make it trivial. usually the assumption are  
not (meta- provable, and that is why we assume them. they become  
provable in the logician sense, with very few words: see the axiom.





STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere.


Indeed. All genuine believer know that they cannot prove the existence  
of an ultimate reality, and that's explains why you need faith to  
search it, be it under the form of cosmology or arithmetic.






 All that is very nice, but name something of interest theology  
has discovered in the last century, and if that's too hard try the  
last millennium.


 interest is subjective.

OK, then tell me something that you think is of interest that  
theology has discovered in the last century,


Theology is mainly perverted since 523. Before: the theologian  
discovered science.





and if that's too hard try the last millennium. I have asked this  
question several times and on each occasion you have used legalese  
and weasel words to avoid giving a clear answer; but if I had asked  
the same question about mathematics or physics or astronomy or  
chemistry or biology or art or literature or even politics you would  
not have needed to hire a lawyer but would have simply supplied a  
long list of wonderful achievements.


The goal of fundamental science is not necessarily in the  
applications. We just try to figure out what is and what can be.






 If you are not conscious of the dogma you support,

Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never

Re: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options

On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:17, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Question.
What is DNA ?

Life library.

DNA consist on atoms and electromagnetic fields.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em field without Electron
It means the source of this em field must be an Electron
Then we need to write :
DNA is atoms, electron (s) and electromagnetic fields.
The simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas
and many theories. In the other words, we don’t know
what electron is.
In my opinion, if we understand electron we will better
understand DNA.

With comp atoms and field are parts of what we need to explain.

Bruno

==.

On Jan 20, 12:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 18 Jan 2013, at 09:32, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix
from zygote to child ?

Probably not. But the complex DNA+cytoplasm might have some
consciousness on vaster scale. very hard to decide this today. Then
DNA

+cytoplasm might have the universal Turing machine consciousness,
which might be trivial tough, and quite disconnected from our
computational history. This might be trivial consciousness. I am
not

sure.

Bruno

==.

On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net

socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “
Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : I think not, therefore I am
Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ?

Are they fool men or maybe
they know that there are two methods of cognitions.
===..

Where does the information come from?

Information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron
In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron who can transfer information.
Can an electron be quant of information?
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows.
..

Big bang
About “ big bang” is written many thick books.
But nobody knows the reason of the “Big Bang”.
I know.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we named ‘ a singular point’.
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we named the ‘big bang.

Actually the name should be Meta-Bang for Metaverse creation
and reserve the word Big-Bang for Universe creation.
I agree that the Metaverse comes from a primordial 26d singularity.
Richard

#
And the Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang
as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII
declared this in 1951.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
=.

Question:
Does DNA Know Geometry ?

I suspect that DNA came from the geometry of general relativity
with

torsion. Can you think of any other geometry the double helix could
be
based on by analogy?

===...
‘ Scientific knowledge is fundamentally paradoxical.’
/ someone /
‘. ., and many feel that physics is just the real deal about
metaphysics. ‘
Bruno
.

--
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
athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
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
athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
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: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter



On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:34, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


Dear Bruno,

 I am discussing ontology, there is no such a process as Turing  
or 'realities' or objects yet at such a level. All is abstracted  
away by the consideration of cancellation of properties. Let me  
just ask you: Did the basic idea of the book, The Theory of  
Nothing by Russell Standish, make sense to you? He is arguing  
for the same basic idea, IMHO.


An expression like cancellation of properties needs already  
many things to make sense.


Dear Bruno,

  Baby steps. The concept that Russell Standish discusses in his  
book, that is denoted by the word Nothing: Do you accept that  
this word points to a concept?


Yes. But there are as many nothing notion than thing notion. It  
makes sense only when we define the things we are talking about.


Dear Bruno,

   There is one overarching concept in Russell Standish 's book that  
is denoted by the word Nothing:


But it is a meta notion. It is equivalent with everything. It is the  
main thema of this list. Assuming everything is conceptually clearer  
than assuming any particular things.
Comp provides only a mathematical instantiation of such approach, like  
Everett-QM on physical reality.






There is a mathematical equivalence between the
Everything, as represented by this collection of all
possible descriptions and Nothing, a state of
no information.


You see.
But to make this precise you have to be clear of the things you assume  
(sets, or numbers, or ...). + their elementary properties without  
which you can do nothing.






   This state of no information is equivalent to my concept of the  
ontologically primitive: that which has no particular properties at  
all.


I see words without meaning, or with too much meaning.



Thus is not not a number nor matter nor any particular at all; it is  
the neutral ground. But this discussion is taking the assumption of  
a well founded or reductive ontology which I argue against except as  
a special case. Additionally, you consider a static and changeless  
ontology whereas I consider a process ontology, like that of  
Heraclitus, Bergson and A.N. whitehead.


Which makes no sense with comp. Just to define comp you have to  
assume, postulate, posit the numbers and their elementary properties.












You refer to paper which use the axiomatic method all the times,  
but you don't want to use it in philosophy, which, I think,  
doesn't help.


  You seem to not understand a simple idea that is axiomatic for  
me. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you understand the  
thesis of Russell Standish's book and the concept of Nothing he  
describes?


Sure no problem. It is not always enough clearcut, as Russell did  
acknowledge, as to see if it is coherent with comp and its  
reversal, but that can evolve.


   I see the evolution as multileveled, flattening everything into a  
single level is causes only confusions.


This is just unfair, as the logic of self-reference (and UDA before)  
explains how the levels of reality emerges from arithmetic.
















Contingency is, at best, all that can be claimed, thus my  
proposal that existence is necessary possiblity.


Existence of what.


 Anything.


That's the object of inquiry.


  OK, so go to the next step. Is the existence of a mind precede  
the existence of what it might have as thoughts?


Yes.

Number --- universal machine --- universal machine mind (---  
physical realities).

Dear Bruno,


   I see these as aspects of a cyclical relation of a process that  
generates physical realities. The relation is non-monotonic as well  
except of special cases such as what you consider.


Universal Machine Mind == Instances of physical realities
   |  ^
   | \
   | \
   | \
   V\
Number --- Universal Machine

   All of these aspects co-exist with each other and none is more  
ontologically primitive than the rest.


OK, like prime number exists at the same level of the natural numbers.  
But they emerge trhough definition that the numbers cannot avoid when  
looking at themselves, so it is misleading to make them assumed. Only  
the definition is proposed.

I can sum up your point by: I will not build a scientific theory.














Necessary and possible cannot be primitive term either.  
Which modal logics? When use alone without further ado, it  
means the modal logic is S5 (the system implicit in Leibniz).  
But S5 is the only one standard modal logic having no  
arithmetical interpretation.


 Wrong level. How is S5 implicit in Leibniz? Could you explain  
this?


With Kripke:

p, that is possibly p, is true in the world alpha if p is  
true in at least one world accessible

Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland



On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of  
the words.


That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract  
computations.


?
God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used  
God to designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot  
for not making that kind of spurious identification.
I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth,  
explaining why it makes God unnameable by machines.

Computation are Sigma_1
Truth is Sigma_1 union Sigma_2 union Sigma_3 union Sigma_4 union ...

You are a bit quick here, Brent,

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.

Re: Robot reading vs human reading



On 20 Jan 2013, at 21:03, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness
everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how
the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and
how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's a  
cat I see !

Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and gave it
up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived through
physiological explanations.

And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with
no account to the personality, memory, training, or
linguistic knowledge of the reader.


Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal  
modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet  
guessable by machines.


Bruno








- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 07:01:56
Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland

On 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Russell Standish

 Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
 positively and without reference to anything else.

This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of
subjectivity.


 Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with
 respect to a second but regardless of any third.

Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be
distracting.


 Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in
 bringing a second and third into relation to each other.

OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter-
intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of
being which is *not* such as it is.

Bruno




 I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness
 (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself)
 and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others)


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]



 Peirce
 Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what
 happened
 at each stage,1/18/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Russell Standish
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11
 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland


 Hi John,

 My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic
 view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection
 with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/ 
objective.


 Cheers

 On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
 Russell,
 I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my
 hand about
 objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are
 'us' and
 cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby
 1904, who -
 maybe? - got it what 2p was.
 My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I  
may

 communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p
 communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and
 reformed
 into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I
 'read' or
 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p
 mindset.
 No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance?
 John Mikes

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Russell Standish

 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses
 synthetic
 logic.
 It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however.

 The following equivalences should hold between comp
 and Peirce's logical categories:

 3p = Thirdness or III
 2p = Secondness or II
 1p = Firstness or I.

 Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic,
 while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic
 logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part.
 So .

 Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes:

 http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html


 Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
 positively and without reference to anything else.

 Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
 with respect to a second but regardless of any third.

 Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is,
 in bringing a second and third into relation to each other.
 (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904)


 Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and  
3p? I

 cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness
 that
 relate to subjectivity and objectivity.

 As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be.


 --


  


 Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New

Re: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter



On 20 Jan 2013, at 23:57, Russell Standish wrote:


On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote:


 You seem to not understand a simple idea that is axiomatic for
me. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you understand the
thesis of Russell Standish's book and the concept of Nothing he
describes?


Sure no problem. It is not always enough clearcut, as Russell did
acknowledge, as to see if it is coherent with comp and its reversal,
but that can evolve.



In some sense, my work is not ontology, as I do not ask the question
what is fundamental like you two are doing. Indeed, I believe the
question to be largely meaningless (I had a long debate with Colin
Hales on this topic).


My point is that IF we are machine, then physics is 100% retrievable  
by the math of the comp first person indeterminacy, making comp  
testable (and partially tested).






More on this later today, if I get time. I had some thoughts during
the night crystallising my understanding of the UDA.

I do acknowledge Bruno's point that set theory is already too
rich. Yet none of my work is based on controversial aspects of set
theory, such as the axiom of choice, so I don't see a big problem
here.


No problem there, except that your assumption are not entirely clear,  
but I have no doubt they can be made clearer. In part you build on an  
intuition which I show to be necessary once we assume comp, so indeed  
there is no problem.
To really compare you would need to formalised, but this would be a  
long work in logic.






As for compatibility with COMP, UD* is already the Nothing I refer
to.


This is not alway clear. Of course UD*, or the equivalent sigma_1  
truth (the tiny part of elementary arithmetic) is a nothing in the  
sense of no physical reality, but this is not nothingness with  
respect to the mathematical assumption. I insist on this for Stephen.  
Assuming UD* is equivalent with assuming elementary arithmetic, or the  
axioms:


x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

 x *0 = 0
 x*s(y) = x*y + x




I do use the uniform measure over the reals


What is the *uniform* measure on the reals? I am not sure this makes  
sense.




as a means for motivating
the use of Solomonoff-Levin's universal prior measure, and Bruno has
criticised this, however the S-L measure over the semantic space is
rather insensitive to the assumed measure over the underlying  
syntactic

space.


What do you mean by semantic space. The book did not help me too  
much on this.
The physics is very sensitive to the measure of the comp histories in  
the UD*, but only thanks to its super-redundancy. Indeed: physics *is*  
the measure.


Solomonof approach (certainly good for doing inductive inference, and  
he does not pretend to do anything else) is of no use to extract  
physics, as his measure compress the redundancy into the non-computable.


Chaitin's number can be seen as the compression (the suppression of  
all redundancy) of Post number (where the ith digit tells if the ith  
machine stops or not).





It is, of course, an open problem whether the measure induced
by the universal dovetailer over UD* makes any difference, as that
measure has not been calculated.


We don't need to calculate it to understand that such a measure is  
equivalent with the physical laws. Comp makes physics a measure  
theory, and this is arguably the case for quantum mechanics. That is  
not an open problem.
I am not sure we talk about the same measure. I show that physics is  
equal to the computationalist first person indeterminacy measure on  
UD*. different measure will give different physics, that is different  
probabilities for the result of the experiments we can do.


Solomonof approach can make sense for the study of biological  
evolution, as it is non computable, but still limit computable. the  
first person indeterminacy is a priori much less computable (not even  
limit-computable), but it is the one we are living, and the overall  
logic bearing on the indeterminacy domain can be found without any  
algorithm to compute it;  and it has been found: it is the Z1* and X1*  
logic, probably S4Grz1, which all gives an arithmetical quantization.  
It is just an open problem if this gives rise to quantum computation  
in our most probable neighborhoods.


Bruno




My gut feeling is that it wouldn't
make any difference, however.


--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
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

Re: Third person NDE



On 21 Jan 2013, at 02:41, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

This may be totally irrelavent, but NDE studlier, Raymond Moody, has  
a book published about 3 years ago, called Glimpses of Eternity, in  
which NDE's and passings-on are a shared experience, including a  
life review, seen by family and friends.


I found this interesting, but still annoying by the lack of  
seriousness on some points. Notably that people having NDE can  
describe objects in their vicinity during the experiences. I am not  
against that notion, but they don't describe serious protocol to  
assess them and conclude too much hastily. Of course if comp is true,  
such discovery would make the comp substitution level much lower than  
most neuro-philosopher believes today.






Supposedly, such family and friends, are not under the influence of  
psychotropic medications at the time, and what it has to do with  
Arithmatical Contradiction, I am sadly, ignorant.



For the case of ideally correct machine, an arithmetical contradiction  
(which does not exist) is equivalent to death (which does not exist  
for such ideal machines). If you prefer: going near an arithmetical  
contradiction (like in the video(*)  where they did it by ignoring the  
metric system!) is equivalent with going near death.


Some psychotropic medication might lead a brain to a state similar to  
some near death state. This is a common assumption concerning some  
mushroom, tabernanthe iboga, salvia divinorum, high LSD dose, DMT,  
etc. Note that sleep is itself a way to experiment such near death  
altered conscious state.
The brain can plausibly have tricks to manage extreme (near death)  
situations. This has a survival value, especially for the mammals who  
fight a lot, like humans.


What I found interesting in the video is that some survivor have a  
discourse quite close to the discourse done by patient after salvia or  
iboga, without an account of a first person NDE, and of course,  
without taking psychedelic (well, one was under alcohol, and he was  
not happy about that).





But I'd thought I would pass it this way to see if there was any  
connection,at all?


Thanks for the question and comment.

Bruno



-Mitch




(*) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ribT9NfkAsg



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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove



On 27 Dec 2012, at 00:22, Roger Clough wrote:



Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

1. That God exists or does not exist.

2. That I exist or do not exist.

3. That computers can be conscious or not.


4. That there is a primary physical reality or not.

You forget the main one which need to be understood to swallow the  
consequence of computationalism.


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.

Re: Two Schrodinger cats



On 21 Jan 2013, at 14:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:


snip

Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's  
take.


It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As  
long as we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied  
fields.
Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all  
glass of beers with the same price :)


Of course, I meant As long as we DON'T identify identity and  
morphism it is OK, in the applied fields..


Got it!


I was sure you did. It is my new typo error. I forget negation!  I  
think they can be guessed from context, but sometimes I quote such  
error so as to remind people to be cautious, and to take the context  
into account. Sorry for adding work.


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.

Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy



On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
  
 But nothing would exist for a blind man,
 since he can see nothing.


Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. 
Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or 
indirectly.
 

  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-21, 09:11:18
 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

  

 On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 Could a blind man stub his toe ?


 Anyone can stub their toe.
  

   
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
 *Subject:* Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

  What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the 
 universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien 
 intelligence?

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 

  Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien 
 intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael 
 Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting 
 people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have 
 no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside 
 to this way of thinking? 
  
 Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti 
 monster here I come?

 -- 
 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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ.
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 21 Jan 2013, at 16:37, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 There is no field of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect  
of it would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon.


 To say that there is no field of theology is equivalent to say  
I know the answer to the fundamental questions,


It is equivalent to saying that the field of theology has never  
once in its entire history explained anything about anything.


It led to monism and science. You confuse theology and post 500  
occidental use of the field. Theology did come up with the idea that  
there is a reality, and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of  
it. The religious feeling starts when you develop faith, like when  
you believe that you have parents and that things occurs for a  
reason. Without spiritual faith there is no science at all, nor even  
technic.




Bruno,

What you say above reminded me of what Einstein said on religion:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves  
are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist  
between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.  
Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has,  
nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what  
means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued  
with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of  
feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there  
also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid  
for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to  
reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that  
profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science  
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


Hi Jason,

Nice quote which illustrates well what I try to convey to John Clark.
It is important to get this to be open of how comp makes this even  
scientific (that is, deductible from hypotheses made clear. It does  
not mean true).


The greeks, it seems to me, were quite aware of this double-way  
dependency at the start. The problem is that we have completely  
separated science from religion, with the automated result that many  
confuse science with a new kind of religion, even unconsciously.
You can guess this with the way most popular media abuse of the term  
know when describing scientific results.


 And symmetrically, others will confuse religion-fairy-tales with  
another kind of science (like the creationists for example.


Science is nothing more than curiosity, clarity and modesty. It is the  
necessary attitude in both religion and science.


And I have said once that science is the tool and religion is the  
goal, and I am glad that Einstein agrees that religion is the goal. It  
is rare to hear that from a scientists, for the obvious reason that  
many religions have been used as a perverted political tools to  
manipulate the people since a long time.


Bruno




From: http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Jason



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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

  
  
  On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
  
  
  
  On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King   
  wrote: 
  On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
   That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in   
  the 
   mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some   
  kind 
   of underlying conputation) 
  
  Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why   
  3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic   
  arithmetic takes some work). 
  
  Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum   
  of distance. 
  
  In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit   
  exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth.  You   
  are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem   
  for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure   
  mathematics exists make any sense to me. 
  
  I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear. 

 Of course. 




  My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern   
  recognition, 

 Can you define pattern recognition without arithmetic or equivalent? 
 I doubt. 


Pattern recognition is the private presentation of experience. It has no 
further definition because it is an ontological primitive. Arithmetic adds 
an expectation of reliability and precision to that fundamental nature, but 
reliability and precision are also private presentations of experience as 
well. Certainly the capacity to experience the pattern of wetness or 
dizzyness need not supervene on any arithmetic basis. 


 We have a different methodology. I start from what people agree on,   
 like simple arithmetic, and computationalism, then i derive from this.   
 But you start from your intuition. 


I start from the recognition that what people agree on, or think they agree 
on, is also intuition. You start by overlooking the intuition behind the 
initial agreements on what are actually complex intellectual products of 
human civilization. Your intuition is that these products, because of their 
seeming universality and circular validation of themselves, are a potential 
replacement for the conscious reasoning which has 
invented/discovered/refined them. I see that as clearly a confirmation bias 
amplified by selective disqualification.
 


 If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot   
 derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of   
 computer. 


You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist is 
if arithmetic is irreducible? Okay, prove that.
 

 Then everything around me does not make sense.


Why?
 

 If you   
 believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a   
 literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and   
 multiplication in the sense I would wait for. 


I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing or 
understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive sensory-motor 
experiences. Addition and multiplication are not literal phenomena, rather 
they are analytical descriptions and interpretations of phenomena which are 
either bodies in space, experiences through time, or combinations and 
continuations thereof. To get to addition, you need to have an experience 
of counting, of memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary 
coherence and multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and 
representation...so many things... I have repeated this several times, why 
do you act as if I have been silent on this point?




  which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material   
  realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of   
  other private representations, it has no public existence which is   
  independent of sense, 

 Assuming what? 


Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin air? 



  nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to   
  any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist   
  independently of sense. 
  
  Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that. 

 In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the   
 foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or   
 semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have   
 already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this.   
 It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine   
 cannot support thinking. 


It's not sad if I'm right. To me it's sad that we are seriously considering 
that machines could generate thinking based on nothing but superficial 
correspondences to behavior,

Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 That is such a silly pov. 


Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking 
about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan 
idealism.
 

 If a boulder
 fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
 you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?


It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you 
were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be 
no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your 
cells and organs, that's another matter.
 

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 So the world did not exist before man ?


 The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not 
 define all experience in the universe.
  

   
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 

 Hi Craig, 

 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
  
 The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
 possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
 fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
 what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
 aetheric emptiness full mass.


 Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to 
 explain that?


 come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is 
 how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

 Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out 
 of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is 
 simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') 
 outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense.

   Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
 complexification of (this) universe?


 Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
 proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
 sense. To make more and more and better sense.
  




 What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything 
 beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous 
 appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's 
 tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete 
 sensory 
 appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - 
 meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. 
 It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular 
 reasoning 
 and instrumental assumptions. 

 What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as 
 a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
 constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
 Universe from Nothing falsifiable?


 Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become 
 scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?


 My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the 
 context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood 
 as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private 
 qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from 
 an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a 
 theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only 
 to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself.

 Craig
  




 We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure 
 particles? What are we assuming about energy?

 Craig 



 On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

 On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 

 Empty Space is not Empty! 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
  

 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's 
 gravitational aether. 


 No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  
 And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.

 Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and 
 the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


 You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even 
 though they don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes 
 from 
 the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs

Re: the curse of materialism



On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
 wrote:
 On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
  That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in
 the
  mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some
 kind
  of underlying conputation)

 Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why
 3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic
 arithmetic takes some work).

 Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum
 of distance.

 In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit
 exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth.  You
 are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem
 for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure
 mathematics exists make any sense to me.

 I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear.

Of course.




 My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern
 recognition,

Can you define pattern recognition without arithmetic or equivalent?
I doubt.

Pattern recognition is the private presentation of experience. It  
has no further definition because it is an ontological primitive.  
Arithmetic adds an expectation of reliability and precision to that  
fundamental nature, but reliability and precision are also private  
presentations of experience as well. Certainly the capacity to  
experience the pattern of wetness or dizzyness need not supervene on  
any arithmetic basis.



We have a different methodology. I start from what people agree on,
like simple arithmetic, and computationalism, then i derive from this.
But you start from your intuition.

I start from the recognition that what people agree on, or think  
they agree on, is also intuition. You start by overlooking the  
intuition behind the initial agreements on what are actually complex  
intellectual products of human civilization. Your intuition is that  
these products, because of their seeming universality and circular  
validation of themselves, are a potential replacement for the  
conscious reasoning which has invented/discovered/refined them. I  
see that as clearly a confirmation bias amplified by selective  
disqualification.



If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer.

You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can  
exist is if arithmetic is irreducible?


I did not say that. I was saying that you have to assume the numbers  
and plus+times (or equivalent) to define pattern recognition,  
computers, etc. If you take pattern recognition as primitive, you  
don't help me to understand anything you say.






Okay, prove that.

Then everything around me does not make sense.

Why?


Because without computer in reality, I have one mystery more: how is  
it that I can send you a mail?






If you
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a
literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and
multiplication in the sense I would wait for.

I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing  
or understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive  
sensory-motor experiences. Addition and multiplication are not  
literal phenomena, rather they are analytical descriptions and  
interpretations of phenomena which are either bodies in space,  
experiences through time, or combinations and continuations thereof.  
To get to addition, you need to have an experience of counting, of  
memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary coherence and  
multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and  
representation...so many things... I have repeated this several  
times, why do you act as if I have been silent on this point?


Sorry but you are confusing the numbers I assume, to explain just the  
working of a computer, with the human intuition of numbers, and the  
human senses, which needs the whole biological evolution to be  
explained. But you talk like if you start from human sense, which is  
non sensical for me. Sorry.










 which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material
 realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of
 other private representations, it has no public existence which is
 independent of sense,

Assuming what?


Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin  
air?



?






 nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to
 any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist
 independently of sense.

 Please don't hesitate to let me

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
 

 Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and 
 theologians and the fight still isn't over.


That is a fiction of historical revisionism. Science is a kind of 
philosophy, philosophy is a refinement of theology. You will never find a 
civilization which has developed science without philosophy or philosophy 
without some kind of spiritual framework of cosmology. That's just the 
facts, man. The founders of Western Enlightenment science would be quite 
surprised to hear that their invention of science was a fight against 
theology as they were profoundly theological and philosophical in their 
orientation. It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western 
approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into 
a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.
 

 If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is 
 theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; 


Now that we can give up and say Evolution did it, things are much better, 
eh?
 

 in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately 
 scientists are not. 


Scientists are modern theologians. Theologians are pre-scientific 
scientists.
 

 But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. 
 Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, 
 scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to 
 figure out. 


A Manichean mythology of prejudice. What new mystery are you trying to 
figure out?
 

 That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC 
 produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they 
 knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of 
 their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find 
 something that contradicted his faith? I can't.   


You grandly overestimate the integrity of modern science. Can you imagine 
how many physicists there would be at the LHC if it paid the same as being 
a theologian? Can you imagine a scientist finding something that 
contradicted his potential for future paychecks? 


  What is your theory?


 That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.


Sounds like a well-founded scientific theory. Whatever I dislike is the 
stupidest thing in the world.

Craig
 


   John k Clark

  



-- 
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/-/tYht-35DYZkJ.
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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options

2013-01-21 Thread John Mikes

Many questionable statements along this long conversation.

To your quote (life library?) - it is a figment of our conventional (bio?)
sciences, as we build 'life' theories from atoms - em - energy - etc.
*
I don't know about Turing ccness, but in my terms ccness is the response
to relations. (Was: to information)
In such sense DNA(?) (+ or not) citoplasm(?) may have such.
JM

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:17, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Question.
What is DNA ?

Life library.

With comp atoms and field are parts of what we need to explain.

Bruno

==.

On Jan 20, 12:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 18 Jan 2013, at 09:32, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix
from zygote to child ?

Probably not. But the complex DNA+cytoplasm might have some
consciousness on vaster scale. very hard to decide this today. Then DNA
+cytoplasm might have the universal Turing machine consciousness,
which might be trivial tough, and quite disconnected from our
computational history. This might be trivial consciousness. I am not
sure.

Bruno

==.

On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net

socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “
Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : I think not, therefore I am
Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ?

Are they fool men or maybe
they know that there are two methods of cognitions.
===..

Where does the information come from?

Actually the name should be Meta-Bang for Metaverse creation
and reserve the word Big-Bang for Universe creation.
I agree that the Metaverse comes from a primordial 26d singularity.
Richard

#
And the Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang
as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII
declared this in 1951.
http://discovermagazine.com/**2004/feb/cover/http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
=.

Question:
Does DNA Know Geometry ?

I suspect that DNA came from the geometry of general relativity with
torsion. Can you think of any other geometry the double helix could
be
based on by analogy?

==**=...
‘ Scientific knowledge is fundamentally paradoxical.’
/ someone /
‘. ., and many feel that physics is just the real deal about
metaphysics. ‘
Bruno
.

--
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 everything-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 athttp://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=en.-http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
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 athttp://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/-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field.

There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and
experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no
experts in the field of theology because there is no knowledge
there to impart. There is no there there. And I don't understand
your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not
significantly stupider than eastern religions.

Theology is mainly perverted since 523

Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit
in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you
insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give
them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need
a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is
useless.

If you define theology as the term is used after its political
perversion, then I agree trivially with you. I use it in the sense of
Plato, who introduced its modern meaning, ecen if that meaning has
been hidden by politics.

You just confirm again that atheists defend the Roman terminology and
theories. you need to believe in the Fairy Tale Christian God to make
you feel serious in disbelieving it. You confuse a science with your
contingent and obscurantist (as you agree) religious education. You
should let it go.

Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality,

That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people
had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails.

Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that
there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such
postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp
it is provable with mathematical logic.
Here you betray that you really believe, in the pseudo-religious
sense, in Aristotle theology.
You confirm my feeling that atheists might be only *naive* christians
which are deeply unaware of their faith. You really can't doubt that
there might be any other notion of God than yours, even to
disbelieve in, and apparently you can't doubt that reality might not
be WYSIWYG.

Bruno

and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it.

I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more
ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against
theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you
can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is
theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; in other
words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately
scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both
love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to
wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them
something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists
would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something
mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and
will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of
their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to
find something that contradicted his faith? I can't.

What is your theory?

That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the
same time.

John k Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and
theologians and the fight still isn't over.

That is a fiction of historical revisionism. Science is a kind of
philosophy, philosophy is a refinement of theology. You will never
find a civilization which has developed science without philosophy
or philosophy without some kind of spiritual framework of cosmology.
That's just the facts, man. The founders of Western Enlightenment
science would be quite surprised to hear that their invention of
science was a fight against theology as they were profoundly
theological and philosophical in their orientation. It is only
recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are
being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a
fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.

... Theology, I guess you meant. Good point.

If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it
is theology advises you to just give up and say God did it;

Now that we can give up and say Evolution did it, things are much
better, eh?

in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately
scientists are not.

Scientists are modern theologians.

Well, scientists are current theologians. But as such they are less
modern than the greeks. In particular, they hide the metaphysical
hypotheses. Theye are not aware of them, most of the time, with few
exceptions.

Theologians are pre-scientific scientists.

Hmm.. OK.

But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries.
Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance,
scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try
to figure out.

A Manichean mythology of prejudice. What new mystery are you trying
to figure out?

That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the
LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they
thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that
shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian
being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I
can't.

You grandly overestimate the integrity of modern science. Can you
imagine how many physicists there would be at the LHC if it paid the
same as being a theologian? Can you imagine a scientist finding
something that contradicted his potential for future paychecks?

What is your theory?

That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the
same time.

Sounds like a well-founded scientific theory. Whatever I dislike is
the stupidest thing in the world.

Some people believe authoritative arguments, if not insults, can be
use instead of reason and argument. I think that they are
fundamentalists.

Bruno

Craig

John k Clark

--
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/-/tYht-35DYZkJ
.

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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:




 Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is 
 anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is 
 unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with 
 mathematical logic.


Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub-arithmetic 
sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a 
machine has a conscious experience of reasoning? Or is the reasoning as 
unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely? Where does 
provability by mathematical logic come in? Why doesn't everything use 
unconscious faith or how does unconscious faith become conscious only to 
become partially obscured once again and in need of proof to restore it to 
consciousness? It seems like the forces which are shaping faith into these 
different qualities of consciousness are actually the more relevant agents. 
What would be the reason for or method of bringing a machine's unconscious 
faith into a conscious experiential mode?

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/-/JNiDxOZdC10J.
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 Monday, January 21, 2013 12:36:48 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
  

 Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and 
 theologians and the fight still isn't over.


 That is a fiction of historical revisionism. Science is a kind of 
 philosophy, philosophy is a refinement of theology. You will never find a 
 civilization which has developed science without philosophy or philosophy 
 without some kind of spiritual framework of cosmology. That's just the 
 facts, man. The founders of Western Enlightenment science would be quite 
 surprised to hear that their invention of science was a fight against 
 theology as they were profoundly theological and philosophical in their 
 orientation. It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western 
 approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into 
 a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.


 ... Theology, I guess you meant. Good point.


Thanks. I have more sympathy for science rejecting Theology, just because I 
see Theology as focused on extending subjective types of truth to the 
public universe as a whole. Science may not be complete without addressing 
larger theological issues, but it has been important to temporarily 
suppress them to develop tools of objectivity. I think that where it has 
overstepped its bounds in recent years (and I don't blame anyone for this, 
it's probably inevitable in the pendulum swing of the history of 
sense-making) is in using the objective tools to dismantle subjectivity 
altogether. That's why I was saying enemy of teleology. Sense, order, 
purpose, etc.. have become the despised contaminants which somehow are the 
exclusive province of the scientist, but not allowed anywhere else in the 
universe.

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/-/qLT7B8uE2qIJ.
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.

2013-01-21 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote

 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in
 the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on
 redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own
 private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to
 communicate and a language known to only one person is useless.



  If you define theology as the term is used after its political
 perversion then I agree


I don't quite see how changing the meaning of a word is a perversion, one
meaning is as good as another as long as the meaning is self consistent and
known to all, but never mind. The important thing is that we both agree
that if we wish to communicate then it might be wise to assign meanings to
words as they have been assigned or 1500 years.

  trivially with you.


Trivially?! If 2 people want to communicate then agreeing on what language
to do it in the the first thing they need to do.


  You just confirm again that atheists defend the Roman terminology and
 theories.


Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

 you need to believe in the Fairy Tale Christian God to make you feel
 serious in disbelieving it.


Well yes obviously. I need to know what the hell they're saying before I
can believe or disbelieve it, if I don't know the meaning of the words
they're using then to me they're just making noises with their mouth,
noises that are neither true nor untrue.

 With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there
 is a reality, so did snails.


 Impossible, or comp is false.


Fine, then comp is false. I never liked it anyway and still don't even know
what that made up word of yours means, every time I think I know you say it
means something that contradicts what you said it meant before and I'm back
at square one. So good reddens to bad rubbish. And now that we both agree
that whatever the hell it means comp is false there is no need to talk
about it further.


  Here you betray that you really believe, in the pseudo-religious sense,


Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


  You confirm my feeling that atheists might be only *naive* christians
 which are deeply unaware of their faith


 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

You really can't doubt that there might be any other notion of God than
 yours


 Many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but
not the word God.

  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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot 
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of 
computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you 
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a 
literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and 
multiplication in the sense I would wait for.

 Dear Bruno,

Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need 
to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? It seems 
to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation 
of arithmetics! Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a 
single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways 
and developing communication methods between themselves.
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such 
as numbers. Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not 
transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which 
can transform and remain the same!


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:01:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:


 You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist 
 is if arithmetic is irreducible? 


 I did not say that. I was saying that you have to assume the numbers and 
 plus+times (or equivalent) to define pattern recognition, computers, etc. 


I don't see that pattern recognition requires numbers to be defined. To the 
contrary, numbers are clearly patterns recognized by different means.

If you take pattern recognition as primitive, you don't help me to 
 understand anything you say. 


I don't have any choice but to take pattern recognition as primitive - it 
is primitive.
 





 Okay, prove that.
  

 Then everything around me does not make sense.


 Why?


 Because without computer in reality, I have one mystery more: how is it 
 that I can send you a mail?


The presence of a computer or network of computers doesn't mean that 
everything else doesn't make sense. Computers have only been around for a 
few decades.
 




  

 If you   
 believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a   
 literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and   
 multiplication in the sense I would wait for. 


 I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing or 
 understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive sensory-motor 
 experiences. Addition and multiplication are not literal phenomena, rather 
 they are analytical descriptions and interpretations of phenomena which are 
 either bodies in space, experiences through time, or combinations and 
 continuations thereof. To get to addition, you need to have an experience 
 of counting, of memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary 
 coherence and multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and 
 representation...so many things... I have repeated this several times, why 
 do you act as if I have been silent on this point?


 Sorry but you are confusing the numbers I assume, to explain just the 
 working of a computer, with the human intuition of numbers, and the human 
 senses, which needs the whole biological evolution to be explained. But you 
 talk like if you start from human sense, which is non sensical for me. 
 Sorry.


I don't start from human sense at all. I start from the irreducible. 
Perceptual participation = experience. The reason a computer works is 
because a there is an experience in which a body participates in a 
perception of not being able to occupy the same space as another body, or 
of a body being able to modify its own sensory-motor disposition based upon 
the capacity to perceive some sensory-motory disposition of another body. 
This is why we can't build machines out of gas or empty space or drawings 
on paper.

 









  which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material   
  realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of   
  other private representations, it has no public existence which is   
  independent of sense, 

 Assuming what? 


 Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin air? 



 ?





  nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to   
  any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist   
  independently of sense. 
  
  Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that. 

 In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the   
 foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or   
 semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have   
 already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this.   
 It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine   
 cannot support thinking. 


 It's not sad if I'm right. 


 That is subjective. I think it is sad even if you are right, as it makes 
 the zombies possible.


Zombies are only possible if you extend an expectation of sentience where 
it doesn't belong. Puppets and avatars are not only possible, but they are 
everywhere, and understanding how layers of sense are partitioned is 
essential to any theory of consciousness.




 To me it's sad that we are seriously considering that machines could 
 generate thinking based on nothing but superficial correspondences to 
 behavior, especially when we know specifically that behavior and 
 consciousness are not directly correlated. 


 You are deadly wrong on this. The fact that machine could possibly think 
 is, for me, more related in the fact that they are mute on the deep 
 question than by any kind of behavior they can have. 


To me the fact that they are mute on the deep questions is an obvious 
tautology. If you ask something which can't think a question which requires 
thinking, it is going to remain mute. It's really no more complicated than 
that. You are reading deep wisdom into the amputated noise of a Magic 
8-Ball pushed

Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy


On 1/21/2013 9:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
But nothing would exist for a blind man,
since he can see nothing.

Dear Roger,

Why are you hung up on vision? I think that Craig is including all 
possible senses.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:05:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot 
  derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of 
  computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you 
  believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a 
  literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and 
  multiplication in the sense I would wait for. 
   Dear Bruno, 

  Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need 
 to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? It seems 
 to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation 
 of arithmetics! Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a 
 single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways 
 and developing communication methods between themselves. 
  Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
 material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such 
 as numbers. Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not 
 transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which 
 can transform and remain the same! 


Right on. I can agree with all of that. I mean if we wanted to get 
technical I would split the physics of counting into the private motive 
experience quantitative reasoning from the sensory experiences of figures 
or forms upon which we project our representations, but yeah numbers need a 
substrate. I call that substrate physical, but not material as it 
experiential/intentional rather than substantial/extended.

Craig

-- 
 Onward! 

 Stephen 




-- 
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/-/6fS3FKpP2zkJ.
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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland


On 1/21/2013 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. 


That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract 
computations.


?
God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used God to 
designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot for not making that kind of 
spurious identification.

I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth,


And that's the most common sense of the word??!

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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Monday, January 21, 2013 1:56:36 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote

  The founders of Western Enlightenment science would be quite surprised 
 to hear that their invention of science was a fight against theology 


 The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that 
 the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive 
 by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the 
 night sky were other suns very very far away. 


The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of 
Theology than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. It's not 
theological views which corrupted religious organizations, it is the 
political power of organization which corrupts underlying views 
(theological, scientific, or otherwise).
 

 They used green wood to kill him because it took longer. 


A very scientific approach.
 
 


 If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is 
 theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; 


  Now that we can give up and say Evolution did it, things are much 
 better, eh?


 Exactly. Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much 
 better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. 


Religion does the same thing. The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. 
Complexity emerges from simplicity, just like any creation myth. If you 
don't have a theory which explains the simplicity though, then all you have 
really done is impress yourself by hiding the problem behind your back. 
It's 'turtles all the way down'.
 


   Can you imagine how many physicists there would be at the LHC if it 
 paid the same as being a theologian?


 TV evangelists make far more money than any physicist who ever lived.   


That's a straw man since anyone who has a TV show aimed at taking money 
from the general public can do that. Ron Popeil is not a theologian. 


   Can you imagine a scientist finding something that contradicted his 
 potential for future paychecks? 


 What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious 
 that contradicts what we think we know. 


Not really. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. 
Now we are going to need to build a whole new generation of facilities to 
experiment with the Higgs. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC 
discovers nothing more than smaller, cheaper facilities could have 
discovered.

Craig 


   John K Clark



  



-- 
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/-/YLUv-BxslGwJ.
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 1/21/2013 8:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jan 2013, at 16:37, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

There is no field of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect
of it
would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon.

To say that there is no field of theology is equivalent to say I
know the
answer to the fundamental questions,

It is equivalent to saying that the field of theology has never once in
its
entire history explained anything about anything.

It led to monism and science. You confuse theology and post 500 occidental
use of
the field. Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, and
that
reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. The religious feeling starts
when you
develop faith, like when you believe that you have parents and that things
occurs
for a reason. Without spiritual faith there is no science at all, nor even
technic.

Bruno,

What you say above reminded me of what Einstein said on religion:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked
off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal
relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal,
it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will
contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be
created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To
this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the
world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive
of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by
an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Hi Jason,

Nice quote which illustrates well what I try to convey to John Clark.
It is important to get this to be open of how comp makes this even scientific (that
is, deductible from hypotheses made clear. It does not mean true).

The greeks, it seems to me, were quite aware of this double-way dependency at the start.
The problem is that we have completely separated science from religion, with the
automated result that many confuse science with a new kind of religion, even unconsciously.
You can guess this with the way most popular media abuse of the term know when
describing scientific results.

And symmetrically, others will confuse religion-fairy-tales with another kind of
science (like the creationists for example.

Science is nothing more than curiosity, clarity and modesty. It is the necessary
attitude in both religion and science.

And I have said once that science is the tool and religion is the goal, and I am glad
that Einstein agrees that religion is the goal. It is rare to hear that from a
scientists, for the obvious reason that many religions have been used as a perverted
political tools to manipulate the people since a long time.

But Einstein did not believe in a god. He had religious feeling for the universe and the
search for knowledge. He decried the use of his name to support the common Abrahamic
religions. He wrote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do
not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be
called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the
structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
---Albert Einstein, 1954, Albert Einstein: The Human Side

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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

2013-01-21 Thread Spudboy100

Eventually, I sure would. But it would be a nice to know anyway. At this  
point to gather the evidence (what would that be??) would lead us to an 
actual  conclusion and theory. Or we'd somehow be communication with this super 
ETI that  created things. If we're speaking with a live mind, or a recording, 
then we'd  have the answer(s). Which would likely lead to better questions. 

-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 1/21/2013 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field.

There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the
behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the field of theology
because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there. And I don't
understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not
significantly stupider than eastern religions.

Theology is mainly perverted since 523

Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in the above, as it
has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like
God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable;
we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless.

Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality,

That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble
figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails.

and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it.

I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had
to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still
isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is
theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; in other words theologians
are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something
in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to
wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to
try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the
LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and
will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can
you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith?
I can't.

What is your theory?

That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

To see a prefect example of a theologian who is apparently a graduate of The John K. Clark
school of Liberal Divinity see:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/the-way-of-the-agnostic/

I didn't bother to comment since there a plenty of good comments already, but it
exemplifies many features of liberal theological thought:

Some things can never be explained by science; and if science hasn't explained it then
religion does.

Religion gives access to a rich and fulfilling life of love (which is implicitly denied
the irreligious).

Atheists have to prove God doesn't exist.

There is something called 'understanding' that is better than knowledge and you can have
for free

Brent

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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13

--
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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy

2013-01-21 Thread Spudboy100

Rclough-you have me dead to rights. Busted on that one. That tends to be my 
 attitude, because sometimes accepting, is really not caring. God's will, 
so  screw. That sort of attitude. Or maybe its a way for people to cope, by 
not  caring? But if caring does no good..? Round and round we go. 

-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.


On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being 
revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology 
which makes an enemy of teleology.


Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology 
as the main source of knowledge about the world.  Coincidentally is only recently that the 
sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the 
solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain 
chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right 
of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the 
suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated...


There is no conflict between science and teleology - in fact science tries to be 
predictive and so it the best tool for realizing a goal.


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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.


On 1/21/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, scientists are current theologians. But as such they are less modern than the 
greeks.  In particular, they hide the metaphysical hypotheses.


Because they've found that it is better to start from observation and to make progress 
where it can be tested rather than assuming some overarching metaphysics and then fighting 
wars over who's metaphysics is right.


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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:20:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

 It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are 
 being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a 
 fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.


 Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has 
 displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world.  
 Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced 
 by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was 
 replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain 
 chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the 
 divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the 
 wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been 
 alleviated...


Those things were all brought about by thinkers and experimenters in the 
early part of the Enlightenment, who had a balanced cosmological view 
rooted in meaning and purpose, not by the extremism which has dominated 
science since the 1980s.  We seldom see such useful and realistic theories 
being produced today. Science has entered into it's corrupt twilight, 
pimping justifications for the highest bidder just as church indulgences 
were once offered. Then as now, these institutions are not without 
benefits, but failure to recognize their deterioration is not progress.

Craig


 There is no conflict between science and teleology - in fact science tries 
 to be predictive and so it the best tool for realizing a goal.

 Brent
  

-- 
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/-/biK4NvVty1IJ.
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have 
representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.

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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 

 Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material 
 things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


 That's something evolution explains.


Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient 
if there were such things as representations, but it offers no such thing 
as a physical ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have 
teleportation, time travel, and telepathy in the same way.

Craig
 


 Brent

  

-- 
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/-/aa-VLnv60KkJ.
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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland

2013-01-21 Thread John Mikes

Bruno:

*...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth,
*
*
*
does that mean: complying with human logic (any)? Just imagine a world
(universe) without logically THINKING beings (humans?) with no math to
formulate (numbers, to express): is there a God there?
JM

*
*


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/21/2013 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:

  On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the
 words.


 That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract
 computations.


  ?
 God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used
 God to designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot for not
 making that kind of spurious identification.
 I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth,


 And that's the most common sense of the word??!

 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.


-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.


On 1/21/2013 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:20:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are 
being
revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist 
pathology
which makes an enemy of teleology.


Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has 
displaced
theology as the main source of knowledge about the world.  Coincidentally 
is only
recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ 
theory...that the
geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that
insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by 
demons...that
democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have
protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in 
childbirth has
been alleviated...


Those things were all brought about by thinkers and experimenters in the early part of 
the Enlightenment, who had a balanced cosmological view rooted in meaning and purpose,


Nonsense. All the above examples were only possible by the rejection of a teleological 
metaphysics.


not by the extremism which has dominated science since the 1980s.  We seldom see such 
useful and realistic theories being produced today.


The treatment of mental disorders by chemistry and brain surgery is almost all since the 
1980's. Smallpox was eradicated in 1979.  Homosexuality is a preference not a sin, since 
the '80's.



Science has entered into it's corrupt twilight, pimping justifications for the highest 
bidder just as church indulgences were once offered. Then as now, these institutions are 
not without benefits, but failure to recognize their deterioration is not progress.


Political institutions become corrupt precisely when they adopt a teleology, a great 
metaphysical goal to which the well being of individual citizens may be sacrificed: The 
Crusades.  Lebensraum.  Communism.  The Cultural Revolution. The Caliphate...


Brent
The web of this world is woven of Necessity and Chance.  Woe to
him who has accustomed himself from his youth up to find
something necessary in what is capricious, and who would ascribe
something like reason to Chance and make a religion of
surrendering to it.
   -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

--
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material 
things to
have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.


Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient if there were 
such things as representations, but it offers no such thing as a physical ontology of 
it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have teleportation, time travel, and telepathy 
in the same way.


If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer science and learn how 
a computer can have representations of cities and faces.


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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:35:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/21/2013 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:20:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

 It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach 
 are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a 
 fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology.


 Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has 
 displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world.  
 Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced 
 by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was 
 replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain 
 chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the 
 divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the 
 wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been 
 alleviated...
  

 Those things were all brought about by thinkers and experimenters in the 
 early part of the Enlightenment, who had a balanced cosmological view 
 rooted in meaning and purpose, 


 Nonsense. All the above examples were only possible by the rejection of a 
 teleological metaphysics.  


Deism is not a rejection of teleological metaphysics. Most Enlightenment 
thinkers were Deists or natural philosophers. Whether the Earth revolves 
around the Sun or not doesn't require a rejection of significance. Neither 
does the existence of germs or lightning or democracy. I'm not saying that 
we should return to those values, only that we need to go beyond our 
current values because they are obviously a dead end.
 


  not by the extremism which has dominated science since the 1980s.  We 
 seldom see such useful and realistic theories being produced today. 


 The treatment of mental disorders by chemistry and brain surgery is almost 
 all since the 1980's. Smallpox was eradicated in 1979.  Homosexuality is a 
 preference not a sin, since the '80's. 


Huh? Lobotomies were practiced since 1935. The Smallpox vaccines used to 
eradicate the disease were perfected in the 1940s. Both vaccination and 
brain surgery have been around for much longer. Attitudes toward 
homosexuality have changed because of relaxed censorship in media, not 
because of any scientific study in the 80s.

We are talking about 32 years now, with more scientists using better 
communication and more robust procedures than any time in history, and you 
can't really name a single innovation which has improved life for human 
beings in general - certainly nothing compared to the innovations in the 
years between 1900 and 1932, or 32 to 64. That was the peak of this 
particular intellectual approach in my opinion. Since 1980 we in the US 
have grown only fatter, more exhausted and overwhelmed, more mentally ill, 
more incarcerated. We still drive almost the same cars as we did in 1980, 
our medical system and education system are legitimately in collapse... 
it's a nightmare, and science has helped to a shockingly small degree.



  Science has entered into it's corrupt twilight, pimping justifications 
 for the highest bidder just as church indulgences were once offered. Then 
 as now, these institutions are not without benefits, but failure to 
 recognize their deterioration is not progress.
  

 Political institutions become corrupt precisely when they adopt a 
 teleology, a great metaphysical goal to which the well being of individual 
 citizens may be sacrificed: The Crusades.  Lebensraum.  Communism.  The 
 Cultural Revolution. The Caliphate...


Political institutions become corrupt the moment that they become political 
institutions. The first order of business is always to maintain and elevate 
the power of the institution.



 Brent
 The web of this world is woven of Necessity and Chance.  Woe to
 him who has accustomed himself from his youth up to find
 something necessary in what is capricious, and who would ascribe
 something like reason to Chance and make a religion of
 surrendering to it.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


as long as we are quoting Goethe (who was of course heavily influenced by 
alchemical thought): 

Destiny grants us our wishes, but in its own way, in order to give us 
something beyond our wishes. 

 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/-/SJ1eTaqayeIJ.
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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 

 Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material 
 things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


 That's something evolution explains.
  

 Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient 
 if there were such things as representations, but it offers no such thing 
 as a physical ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have 
 teleportation, time travel, and telepathy in the same way.
  

 If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer 
 science and learn how a computer can have representations of cities and 
 faces.


I have taught computer classes professionally actually. I'm certified MCSE 
and CCEA and have been using computers on a daily basis since 1981. 
Computers have no representations. It is us who use pixels to represent 
images or transistors to represent bits of information, not a computer. A 
computer wouldn't know the difference between a city and a face if it 
scanned every image of a face and a city in existence.

I recommend you study semiotics and learn how symbols and subjects relate. 

Craig



 Brent
  

-- 
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/-/49pVJoVghBIJ.
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: the curse of materialism

On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for
material
things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as
numbers.

That's something evolution explains.

Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient
if there
were such things as representations, but it offers no such thing as a
physical
ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have teleportation, time
travel, and telepathy in the same way.

If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer
science and
learn how a computer can have representations of cities and faces.

I have taught computer classes professionally actually. I'm certified MCSE and CCEA and
have been using computers on a daily basis since 1981. Computers have no
representations. It is us who use pixels to represent images or transistors to represent
bits of information,

...and images (in computers) represent objects.

not a computer. A computer wouldn't know the difference between a city and a face if it
scanned every image of a face and a city in existence.

Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the
streets of Los Angeles.

Brent

I recommend you study semiotics and learn how symbols and subjects relate.

When it comes to semiotics, I'm a pragmatist. The meaning of a symbol is how it effects
the perceiver. I think it's amusing that what is taken as serious academic philosophy in
France is done in the U.S. as marketing research.

Brent

Craig

Brent

--
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/-/49pVJoVghBIJ.

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: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13

--
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I mean if we wanted to get technical I would split the physics of 
counting into the private motive experience quantitative reasoning 
from the sensory experiences of figures or forms upon which we project 
our representations, but yeah numbers need a substrate. I call that 
substrate physical, but not material as it experiential/intentional 
rather than substantial/extended.


Hi Craig,

What is the difference between experiential/intentional and 
substantial/extended other than a vague and undefined reference to some 
imaginary 3p? What I experience is 'substantial to me', at least for a 
moment until what ever it was vanishes again as new data arrives. What 
is intensional to me, as in, X implies Y where X does not equal Y or X 
is not the same as Y, other than a difference in quantity; the same kind 
of difference that one end of a yardstick has from the other end, when 
we abstracted away the variances.
So the one associated with yardsticks is easily represented as a 
scalar value, but isn't every thing substantial quantifiable in some way 
too? We sometimes fall prey to misplaced categorization...


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
material things to have representations of things, intensionality, 
such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.

Brent


Hi Brent,

Could you elaborate on this comment?

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 5:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to 
have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.

Brent


Hi Brent,

Could you elaborate on this comment?


I thought it was obvious. A (material) living thing can be more successful reproducing if 
it can internally manipulate representations of things in the world, i.e. think and plan, 
such as counting them, adding and subtracting.  See the book by William S. Cooper which I 
have cited before.


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: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter